A comparison of cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of two- implant-retained overdentures versus other removable prosthodontic treatment options for edentulous mandible: A systematic review.
Aftercare costs
attachment systems
conventional complete denture
cost analysis
cost-effectiveness
implant overdenture
mini-implant
Journal
Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society
ISSN: 0972-4052
Titre abrégé: J Indian Prosthodont Soc
Pays: India
ID NLM: 101255941
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
15
10
2019
revised:
12
12
2019
accepted:
10
03
2020
entrez:
14
7
2020
pubmed:
14
7
2020
medline:
14
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to examine systematically the data published on the cost and cost-effectiveness of mandibular two-implant-retained overdentures compared to other removable prosthodontic treatment options for edentulous mandible. It is a systematic review which analyses the available data from the prospective and retrospective studies and randomized clinical trials to find out costs and cost effectiveness of different removable treatment modalities for completely edentulous mandible. The study protocol was decided according to PRISMA guidelines. The search was limited to English literature only and included an electronic search through PubMed Central, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and complemented by hand-searching. All clinical trials published up to August 2019 were included (without any starting limit). Two independent investigators extracted the data and assessed the studies. No meta-analysis was conducted because of the high heterogeneity of data. Out of the initial 509 records, only nine studies were included. The risks of bias of individual studies were assessed. Six studies presented data on cost and cost analysis only. The rest three articles provided data on cost-effectiveness. The overall costs of implant overdentures were higher than the conventional complete dentures. However, implant overdentures were more cost-effective when compared to conventional complete dentures. Single-implant overdentures are also less expensive than two-implant overdentures. Overdentures supported by two or four mini-implants were also reported as more cost-effective than conventional two-implant-supported overdentures. Two-implant-retained overdentures are more expensive but cost-effective than the conventional complete dentures. Two- or four-mini-implant-retained overdentures are less expensive than two-implant-retained overdentures, but there is a lack of long-term data on aftercare cost and survival rate of mini-implants. Single-implant overdentures are also less expensive than the two-implant-retained overdentures. The differences of the aftercare costs of different attachment systems for implant overdentures were not significant. There is a need of further studies on comparative cost-effectiveness of different types of implant overdentures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32655220
doi: 10.4103/jips.jips_393_19
pii: JIPS-20-162
pmc: PMC7335021
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
162-170Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2020 The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
There are no conflicts of interest.
Références
JDR Clin Trans Res. 2018 Jan;3(1):47-56
pubmed: 30938654
Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10 Suppl 1:13-34
pubmed: 28944366
J Dent Res. 2007 Mar;86(3):276-80
pubmed: 17314262
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997 Fall;13(4):589-601
pubmed: 9489251
J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2019 Oct-Dec;19(4):374-378
pubmed: 31649448
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998 Jul-Aug;13(4):546-53
pubmed: 9714962
J Dent. 2017 Sep;64:1-12
pubmed: 28662842
J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2017 Oct-Dec;17(4):361-372
pubmed: 29249880
J Dent Res. 2007 Feb;86(2):131-6
pubmed: 17251511
J Dent Res. 2006 Aug;85(8):717-21
pubmed: 16861288
Bull World Health Organ. 2016 Dec 1;94(12):925-930
pubmed: 27994285
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001 Apr;12(2):159-66
pubmed: 11251666
Int J Prosthodont. 2002 Sep-Oct;15(5):446-50
pubmed: 12375458
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):264-9, W64
pubmed: 19622511
Int J Prosthodont. 2017 Jul/Aug;30(4):321-326
pubmed: 28697200
Int J Prosthodont. 2004 Mar-Apr;17(2):231-5
pubmed: 15119877
BMC Oral Health. 2017 Feb 15;17(1):53
pubmed: 28202072
Int J Prosthodont. 2009 Jul-Aug;22(4):331-9
pubmed: 19639067
J Prosthet Dent. 1998 Jan;79(1):24-30
pubmed: 9474537
J Oral Rehabil. 2015 Mar;42(3):234-42
pubmed: 25327636
J Med Assoc Thai. 2014 May;97 Suppl 5:S10-6
pubmed: 24964694
Health Rep. 2005 Nov;17(1):55-8
pubmed: 16335694
Aust Dent J. 2016 Dec;61(4):482-488
pubmed: 26836981
Rev Saude Publica. 2019 Aug 19;53:
pubmed: 31432931
Indian J Dent Res. 2006 Jan-Mar;17(1):11-21
pubmed: 16900890
Int J Prosthodont. 2004 Mar-Apr;17(2):181-6
pubmed: 15119869
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 3;10:ED000142
pubmed: 31643080
J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2015 Jul-Sep;15(3):237-43
pubmed: 26929519
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013 Mar-Apr;28(2):343-56
pubmed: 23527335
J Dent Res. 2005 Sep;84(9):794-9
pubmed: 16109986
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Feb;25(2):e171-8
pubmed: 23278517
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017 Oct;19(5):944-951
pubmed: 28703477
Int J Dent. 2013;2013:498305
pubmed: 23737789
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Sep;26 Suppl 11:57-63
pubmed: 26077930