Costs of Glass Hybrid Versus Nanocomposite: Randomized Trial

Objectives: We compared the initial and total costs over 18-months follow-up of glass hybrid (GH; EQUIA Forte Fil/EQUIA Forte Coat) and adhesive/nano-hybrid resin composite (RC; OptiBond FL/Filtek Supreme XTE) restorations for non-carious cervical lesions in a randomized controlled trial.
Methods: This cluster-randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02631161) included 88 patients (50-70 years) who received 175 restorations, placed by two operators, in a German university setting. A payer’s perspective was chosen; the horizon of our analysis was 18 months. Initial costs were determined based on micro-costing using time recordings and hourly cost rates of German dental practices. Follow-up costs were determined based on statutory insurance fee item catalogues. Discounting was applied at 3% per annum. Generalized linear mixed modelling (GLM) was used to analyse factors associated with total costs.
Results: 78 patients (160 restorations) were assessed after a mean of 18 months. 15 (18%) and 11 (12%) restorations failed in GH and RC, respectively. Initial costs were lower for GH [mean(SD): 33(16) Euro)] than RC [44(21) Euro], the same was true for total costs [GH: 39(21) Euro; RC: 47(23) Euro]. In GLM, costs were significantly higher in RC than GH (mean difference, 95% CI: 14, 7-19 Euro), as well as in one operator versus the other (24, 18-30 Euro). Age or sex did not show significant associations (p>0.05).
Conclusions: While survival rates were not significantly different between GH and RC for restoring non-carious cervical lesions, costs were significantly lower in GH both initially and long-term.