TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost estimation of single-implant treatment in the periodontally healthy patient after 16-22 years of follow-up
AU - Dierens, M.
AU - Vandeweghe, S.
AU - Kisch, J.
AU - Nilner, K.
AU - Cosyn, J.
AU - De Bruyn, H.
PY - 2015/11/1
Y1 - 2015/11/1
N2 - Background: Costs for single-implant treatment are mostly described for the initial treatment. Information on the additional cost related to aftercare is scarce. Objective: To make an estimation of complication costs of single implants in periodontally healthy patients after 16-22 years and to compare costs for various prosthetic designs. Materials and methods: Patients with a single implant were recalled for a clinical examination and file investigation. Prosthetic designs included single-tooth (ST) and CeraOne (CO) abutments supporting a porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM), all-ceramic (CER), or gold-acrylic (ACR) crown. Costs related to failures or technical, biologic, and aesthetic complications were retrieved from patient's records. Total and yearly additional complication costs were calculated as a percentage relative to the initial cost. Chair time needed to solve the complication was recorded and prosthetic designs were compared by Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results: Fifty patients with 59 surviving implants were clinically investigated. Additional complication costs after a mean follow-up of 18.5 years amounted to 23% (range 0-110%) of the initial treatment cost. In total, 39% of implants presented with no costs, whereas 22% and 8% encountered additional costs over 50% and 75%, respectively. In 2%, the complication costs exceeded the initial cost. The mean yearly additional cost was 1.2% (range 0-6%) and mean complication time per implant was 67 min (range 0-345 min). Differences between prosthetic designs (CO, ST-PFM, ST-ACR) were statistically significant for total cost (P = 0.011), yearly cost (P = 0.023), and time (P = 0.023). Pairwise comparison revealed significant lower costs for CO compared with ST-ACR reconstructions. Conclusion: Patients should be informed about additional costs related to complications with single implants. The mean additional cost spent on complications was almost one-quarter of the initial treatment price. A majority of implants presented with lower additional costs, whereas the highest complication costs were related to a smaller group with 22% of the implants needing more than half of the initial cost for complication management. Expenses were significantly different for various prosthetic designs.
AB - Background: Costs for single-implant treatment are mostly described for the initial treatment. Information on the additional cost related to aftercare is scarce. Objective: To make an estimation of complication costs of single implants in periodontally healthy patients after 16-22 years and to compare costs for various prosthetic designs. Materials and methods: Patients with a single implant were recalled for a clinical examination and file investigation. Prosthetic designs included single-tooth (ST) and CeraOne (CO) abutments supporting a porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM), all-ceramic (CER), or gold-acrylic (ACR) crown. Costs related to failures or technical, biologic, and aesthetic complications were retrieved from patient's records. Total and yearly additional complication costs were calculated as a percentage relative to the initial cost. Chair time needed to solve the complication was recorded and prosthetic designs were compared by Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results: Fifty patients with 59 surviving implants were clinically investigated. Additional complication costs after a mean follow-up of 18.5 years amounted to 23% (range 0-110%) of the initial treatment cost. In total, 39% of implants presented with no costs, whereas 22% and 8% encountered additional costs over 50% and 75%, respectively. In 2%, the complication costs exceeded the initial cost. The mean yearly additional cost was 1.2% (range 0-6%) and mean complication time per implant was 67 min (range 0-345 min). Differences between prosthetic designs (CO, ST-PFM, ST-ACR) were statistically significant for total cost (P = 0.011), yearly cost (P = 0.023), and time (P = 0.023). Pairwise comparison revealed significant lower costs for CO compared with ST-ACR reconstructions. Conclusion: Patients should be informed about additional costs related to complications with single implants. The mean additional cost spent on complications was almost one-quarter of the initial treatment price. A majority of implants presented with lower additional costs, whereas the highest complication costs were related to a smaller group with 22% of the implants needing more than half of the initial cost for complication management. Expenses were significantly different for various prosthetic designs.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84943582322&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/clr.12453
DO - 10.1111/clr.12453
M3 - Article
SN - 0905-7161
VL - 26
SP - 1288
EP - 1296
JO - Clinical Oral Implants Research
JF - Clinical Oral Implants Research
IS - 11
ER -