LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 26 , Issue 5
September/October 2013

Pages 465–469


Economic Outcomes in Prosthodontics

Francesco Bassi, MD, DDS/Alan B. Carr, DMD/Ting-Ling Chang, DDS/Emad W. Estafanous, BSD, MSD/Neal R. Garrett, PhD/Risto-Pekka Happonen, DDS, PhD/Sreenivas Koka, DDS, MS, PhD, MBA/Juhani Laine, DDS, PhD/Martin Osswald, MBDS, MDent/Harry Reintsema, DDS, PhD/Jana Rieger, MSc, PhD/Eleni Roumanas, DDS/Thomas J. Salinas, DDS, MS/Clark M. Stanford, BSc, DDS, PhD/Johan Wolfaardt, BDS, MDent, PhD


PMID: 23998145
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.3405

Purpose: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify the types of economic measures currently used in implant prosthodontics and determine the degree to which cost of care is considered in the context of any positive outcome of the care provided. Materials and Methods: A literature search was conducted using the following set of terms plus some additional hand searching: “dental implants” (Mesh) AND (“cost”) OR “maintenance” OR “healthcare policy” OR “access to care” OR “third party” OR “economic”) AND ((“1995/01/01”[PDat]:’2009/12/31”[PDat]) AND (Humans[Mesh]) AND (English[lang])). Results: After a review of the 466 titles and abstracts identified by the search, 18 articles were accepted for further consideration, as some attempt at economic outcome measures was made. An additional four articles were identified by hand searching. The 22 accepted articles were grouped into four basic categories: (1) measure of costs of treatment (direct, indirect, and maintenance costs), (2) cost-effectiveness mathematical modeling applied to simulate the lifetime paths and cost of treatment, (3) cost-effectiveness analysis/costminimization, and (4) willingness-to-pay, willingness-to-accept. Attempts at determining the costs of treatment varied widely. When the OMERACT filters were applied to the various measures it was felt that discrimination and/or feasibility was a problem for most of the current economic outcome measures. Conclusions: Measures of cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility are currently the gold standard; however, feasibility of such analyses is an issue. Collaboration with health economists to guide future research is highly recommended. Int J Prosthodont 2013;26:465–469. doi: 10.11607/ijp.3405


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2017 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc

IJP Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help