File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Economic aspects of single-tooth replacement

TitleEconomic aspects of single-tooth replacement
Authors
Issue Date2005
PublisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR
Citation
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2005, v. 16 n. 3, p. 335-341 How to Cite?
AbstractThe aim of this study was to assess and compare economic parameters of two treatment options in patients requiring single-tooth replacements in private practice. Thirty-seven patients received 41 conventional three-unit fixed partial dentures (FPDs). Fifty-two patients received 59 single crowns on implants (I). Treatment assignment was not random. All except one were metal ceramic reconstructions. All except one were crowns cemented on solid abutments of the ITI® Dental Implant System. Economic parameters were noted for the preparatory phase, the actual reconstruction and for treatment of biological and/or technical complication thereafter (range 1-4 years): number of visits, chair-side time, treatment costs, costs for implant components and laboratory work. Costs were based on the tariffs between the Swiss dentists association and the insurers (Sfr 3.1 per tariff point). Implant treatment required more visits than FPD (8.1 ± 2/4.8 ± 2.3, ξ2: P=0.02). However, the total treatment time was similar (I: 4.8h ± 0.9h/FGM: 5.1h ± 1.3h, NS). Laboratory costs were higher for FPD (1527.8 ± 209 SFr) vs. 579.6 ± 106.9 CHF for I. Costs for treatment of technical and biological complications were similar. Total costs amounted to 3939.4 ± 766.4 SFr for FGM vs. 3218 ± 512.2 SFr for I (P<0.003, Kolmogorov-Smirnov). Even when considering opportunity costs (50 SFr) for each visit the implant solution was less expensive: 3623.2 ± 656.1 SFr vs. 4178.7 ± 822.1 SFr (P<0.04, Kolmogorov-Smirnov). Costs for treatment of complications were similar. In conclusion, over a short observation period, the implant reconstruction demonstrated a more favorable cost/effectiveness ratio. Especially in clinical situations with either non- or minimally restored teeth and sufficient bone, the implant reconstruction is to be recommended from an economical point of view. Copyright © Blackwell Munksgaard 2005.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/154362
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.464
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.427
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBrägger, Uen_US
dc.contributor.authorKrenander, Pen_US
dc.contributor.authorLang, NPen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-08T08:24:53Z-
dc.date.available2012-08-08T08:24:53Z-
dc.date.issued2005en_US
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2005, v. 16 n. 3, p. 335-341en_US
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/154362-
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to assess and compare economic parameters of two treatment options in patients requiring single-tooth replacements in private practice. Thirty-seven patients received 41 conventional three-unit fixed partial dentures (FPDs). Fifty-two patients received 59 single crowns on implants (I). Treatment assignment was not random. All except one were metal ceramic reconstructions. All except one were crowns cemented on solid abutments of the ITI® Dental Implant System. Economic parameters were noted for the preparatory phase, the actual reconstruction and for treatment of biological and/or technical complication thereafter (range 1-4 years): number of visits, chair-side time, treatment costs, costs for implant components and laboratory work. Costs were based on the tariffs between the Swiss dentists association and the insurers (Sfr 3.1 per tariff point). Implant treatment required more visits than FPD (8.1 ± 2/4.8 ± 2.3, ξ2: P=0.02). However, the total treatment time was similar (I: 4.8h ± 0.9h/FGM: 5.1h ± 1.3h, NS). Laboratory costs were higher for FPD (1527.8 ± 209 SFr) vs. 579.6 ± 106.9 CHF for I. Costs for treatment of technical and biological complications were similar. Total costs amounted to 3939.4 ± 766.4 SFr for FGM vs. 3218 ± 512.2 SFr for I (P<0.003, Kolmogorov-Smirnov). Even when considering opportunity costs (50 SFr) for each visit the implant solution was less expensive: 3623.2 ± 656.1 SFr vs. 4178.7 ± 822.1 SFr (P<0.04, Kolmogorov-Smirnov). Costs for treatment of complications were similar. In conclusion, over a short observation period, the implant reconstruction demonstrated a more favorable cost/effectiveness ratio. Especially in clinical situations with either non- or minimally restored teeth and sufficient bone, the implant reconstruction is to be recommended from an economical point of view. Copyright © Blackwell Munksgaard 2005.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLRen_US
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Researchen_US
dc.subject.meshAdulten_US
dc.subject.meshAgeden_US
dc.subject.meshAged, 80 And Overen_US
dc.subject.meshChi-Square Distributionen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Implants, Single-Tooth - Economicsen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported - Economicsen_US
dc.subject.meshDenture, Partial, Fixed - Economicsen_US
dc.subject.meshFemaleen_US
dc.subject.meshHumansen_US
dc.subject.meshMaleen_US
dc.subject.meshMiddle Ageden_US
dc.subject.meshRetrospective Studiesen_US
dc.subject.meshStatistics, Nonparametricen_US
dc.subject.meshTime Factorsen_US
dc.titleEconomic aspects of single-tooth replacementen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailLang, NP:nplang@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityLang, NP=rp00031en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01112.xen_US
dc.identifier.pmid15877754-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-25144514052en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-25144514052&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume16en_US
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.spage335en_US
dc.identifier.epage341en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000228964900010-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBrägger, U=7005538598en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridKrenander, P=8953556200en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLang, NP=7201577367en_US
dc.identifier.citeulike185592-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats