LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 17 , Issue 2
March/April 2004

Pages 181186


A Cost Comparison of Mandibular Two-Implant Overdenture and Conventional Denture Treatment

Yoshiaki Takanashi, DDS, PhD/John R. Penrod, PhD/James P. Lund, BDS, PhD/Jocelyne S. Feine, DDS, HDR


PMID: 15119869

Purpose:This article compares the cost of mandibular two-implant overdenture treatment to that of conventional denture treatment in an academic teaching hospital. Materials and Methods:Sixty edentulous patients (aged 65 to 75 years) participated in a randomized clinical trial. All patients received a new maxillary complete denture and either a mandibular conventional denture (n = 30) or an implant overdenture on two unsplinted implants (n = 30). Resource-based microcosting of direct and indirect costs (eg, expenses and time cost to patients) of all scheduled and unscheduled visits was conducted through 1 year following delivery of the prostheses. Results: Mean direct costs (1999 CD$) for scheduled visits in the implant and conventional groups were $2,332 and $814, respectively, and mean indirect costs were $1,150 and $810, respectively. Differences between the two groups were significant. Twenty-six patients in each group had unscheduled visits during the study at a median direct cost for the overdentures of $85 and $64 for the conventional dentures. Median indirect costs for unscheduled visits were $163 and $202, respectively. These differences were not significant. Mean total costs of the overdentures were $4,245 and $2,316 for the conventional dentures, and the between-group difference was significant. Conclusion:The direct cost of mandibular two-implant overdenture treatment was 2.4 times higher than that of conventional denture treatment. When indirect costs were added, the implant-to-conventional total cost ratio estimate was 1.8. These cost data can now be combined with estimates of the efficacy of the two types of prosthesis so practitioners and patients can make informed decisions about these prosthodontic treatment concepts. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:181186.


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