IADR Abstract Archives
Cost-effectiveness: Preventive vs. Active Intervention for Peri-implant Diseases
Objectives: To compare cost-effectiveness of preventive (PT) vs. active non-surgical intervention (NS) for peri-implant diseases.
Methods: PubMed and GoPubmed databases were searched using keywords preventive therapy of peri-implantitis, preventive therapy of peri-implant mucositis, preventive therapy of peri-implant diseases, nonsurgical interventions/treatment of peri-implantitis, nonsurgical interventions/treatment of peri-implant mucositis, and nonsurgical intervention/treatment of per-implant diseases. Four PT studies and 6 NS studies fit inclusion criteria after excluding those with risk for bias according to Fowke’s and Fulton’s guidelines. The following data were collected: bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index (PI) and peri-implant probing depth (PPD). Disease rates reported percentages of implants with peri-implant mucositis and/or peri-implantitis where disease was defined BOP at at least one site, PPD of ≥ 4 mm, and/or radiographic bone loss. Teaching institution codes were used to identify prices that were used to estimate the customary and usual treatment costs; average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACER) was calculated as the ratio of cost of treatment to change in clinical parameters. Independent samples t-test was used to ACER of the two types of treatments.
Results: A total number of 939 implants (653 diseased, 286 healthy implants) were included. PT is significantly more cost-effective than NS in reducing the peri-implant mean PI ($283.4±254.4 vs $13716.2±10199.4; p=0.078, CI=90%). No significant cost-effectiveness difference was found between the two treatments in reducing BOP (PT = $851.4, NS = $1631.1±1294.0, p=0.627, CI=90%) or PPD (ACER: PT = $70.3, NS =$6456.0 ±9777.8, p=0.553, CI=90%).
Conclusions: More well-controlled clinical studies are needed. PT is more cost effective than NS for PI reduction.
Methods: PubMed and GoPubmed databases were searched using keywords preventive therapy of peri-implantitis, preventive therapy of peri-implant mucositis, preventive therapy of peri-implant diseases, nonsurgical interventions/treatment of peri-implantitis, nonsurgical interventions/treatment of peri-implant mucositis, and nonsurgical intervention/treatment of per-implant diseases. Four PT studies and 6 NS studies fit inclusion criteria after excluding those with risk for bias according to Fowke’s and Fulton’s guidelines. The following data were collected: bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index (PI) and peri-implant probing depth (PPD). Disease rates reported percentages of implants with peri-implant mucositis and/or peri-implantitis where disease was defined BOP at at least one site, PPD of ≥ 4 mm, and/or radiographic bone loss. Teaching institution codes were used to identify prices that were used to estimate the customary and usual treatment costs; average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACER) was calculated as the ratio of cost of treatment to change in clinical parameters. Independent samples t-test was used to ACER of the two types of treatments.
Results: A total number of 939 implants (653 diseased, 286 healthy implants) were included. PT is significantly more cost-effective than NS in reducing the peri-implant mean PI ($283.4±254.4 vs $13716.2±10199.4; p=0.078, CI=90%). No significant cost-effectiveness difference was found between the two treatments in reducing BOP (PT = $851.4, NS = $1631.1±1294.0, p=0.627, CI=90%) or PPD (ACER: PT = $70.3, NS =$6456.0 ±9777.8, p=0.553, CI=90%).
Conclusions: More well-controlled clinical studies are needed. PT is more cost effective than NS for PI reduction.