Cost-effectiveness analysis of two attachment systems for mandibular overdenture
SourceClinical Oral Implants Research, 31, 7, (2020), pp. 615-624
Article / Letter to editor
Display more detailsDisplay less details
Clinical Oral Implants Research
SubjectRadboudumc 10: Reconstructive and regenerative medicine RIHS: Radboud Institute for Health Sciences
OBJECTIVES: This study analysed the cost-effectiveness of two different attachments for the 2-implant overdenture (2IOD) in edentulous mandibles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: When considering alternative treatments, cost-effectiveness analysis is an important factor for stakeholders (patient, clinician, social security, insurance company, etc.). A general practice population (n = 116) was treated between 2003 and 2013 with a mandibular 2IOD with 2 different ball/stud attachment systems, one spherical (Group D) and one cylindrical (Group L). Patient well-being was assessed with OHIP-14-Total (OHIP-14-T), at intake and annually up to 5 years, to calculate the health effect. Initial and maintenance costs of both treatments were inventoried. The cost-effectiveness was compared. Annual discount rates of 4% and 1.5% were applied to future costs and health outcomes, following Dutch guidelines. Prices were adjusted to the year 2003. To offset the uncertainty in relevant input parameters, a sensitivity analysis was performed using bootstrap analysis. Significance was set at p < .05. RESULTS: The health effect was 6.36 (SD 5.32) for Group D and 8.54 (SD 5.63) for Group L. The sum of the discounted costs up to 5 years was EUR 4,210.98 (SD 634.75) for the D and EUR 3,840.62 (SD 302.63) for the Group L (p = .005). The bootstrapping reports that L abutment clearly dominates the D abutment in terms of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The 2IOD on the L abutment is dominant compared to the 2IOD on D abutment, in a 5-year perspective.
Upload full text