Cost-effectiveness analysis: nonsurgical root canal treatment versus single-tooth implant
Abstract Background Economic evaluation of nonsurgical root canal treatment (NSRCT) and single-tooth implant (STI) provides useful information for medical decision. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NSRCT versus single-tooth implant (STI) after 5-year treatment in...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2023-07-01
|
| Series: | BMC Oral Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03173-x |
| _version_ | 1797778608781000704 |
|---|---|
| author | Hai-Ling Zang Yu Zhang Xiao-Wen Hao Li Yang Yu-Hong Liang |
| author_facet | Hai-Ling Zang Yu Zhang Xiao-Wen Hao Li Yang Yu-Hong Liang |
| author_sort | Hai-Ling Zang |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Economic evaluation of nonsurgical root canal treatment (NSRCT) and single-tooth implant (STI) provides useful information for medical decision. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NSRCT versus single-tooth implant (STI) after 5-year treatment in a university affiliated hospital in Beijing, China. Methods 211 patients who underwent NSRCT and 142 patients who had STI were included and recalled after 5-year treatment. The propensity scores were used to match the cases of two treatment modalities. At recall, outcomes were determined based on clinical and radiographical examinations. For endodontically treated cases, absence or reduction of radiolucency were defined as success. Marginal bone loss (MBL) ≤ 4 mm were determined as success for implant cases. Direct and indirect costs were calculated in China Yuan (CNY). Patients’ willingness to pay (WTP) for each treatment modality was evaluated by questionnaires. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective. Results 170 patients with 120 NSRCT teeth and 96 STI were available at recall. Based on propensity score matching, 76 endodontically treated teeth were matched to 76 implants. Absence of the radiolucency was observed in 58 of 76 endodontically treated teeth (76%) and reduction of the radiolucency in 9 of 76 teeth (12%) and altogether the success rate was 88%. 100% implants were detected with marginal bone loss (MBL) ≤ 4 mm. The cost advantage of NSRCT (4,751 CNY) over STI (20,298 CNY) was more pronounced. Incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 129,563 CNY (STI-NSRCT) per success rate gained. It exceeded the patients’ willingness to pay value 7,533 CNY. Conclusions Clinical outcomes of NSRCT and STI could be predictable after 5-year treatment. NSRCT may be more cost-effective than STI for managing endodontically diseased teeth. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T23:19:54Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-00e484c713c44f02abf331ab54a31f82 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1472-6831 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T23:19:54Z |
| publishDate | 2023-07-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Oral Health |
| spelling | doaj.art-00e484c713c44f02abf331ab54a31f822023-07-16T11:30:09ZengBMCBMC Oral Health1472-68312023-07-012311810.1186/s12903-023-03173-xCost-effectiveness analysis: nonsurgical root canal treatment versus single-tooth implantHai-Ling Zang0Yu Zhang1Xiao-Wen Hao2Li Yang3Yu-Hong Liang4Department of Cariology and Endodontology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical DevicesDepartment of Implantology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical DevicesDepartment of Implantology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical DevicesDepartment of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Peking UniversityDepartment of Cariology and Endodontology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical DevicesAbstract Background Economic evaluation of nonsurgical root canal treatment (NSRCT) and single-tooth implant (STI) provides useful information for medical decision. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NSRCT versus single-tooth implant (STI) after 5-year treatment in a university affiliated hospital in Beijing, China. Methods 211 patients who underwent NSRCT and 142 patients who had STI were included and recalled after 5-year treatment. The propensity scores were used to match the cases of two treatment modalities. At recall, outcomes were determined based on clinical and radiographical examinations. For endodontically treated cases, absence or reduction of radiolucency were defined as success. Marginal bone loss (MBL) ≤ 4 mm were determined as success for implant cases. Direct and indirect costs were calculated in China Yuan (CNY). Patients’ willingness to pay (WTP) for each treatment modality was evaluated by questionnaires. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective. Results 170 patients with 120 NSRCT teeth and 96 STI were available at recall. Based on propensity score matching, 76 endodontically treated teeth were matched to 76 implants. Absence of the radiolucency was observed in 58 of 76 endodontically treated teeth (76%) and reduction of the radiolucency in 9 of 76 teeth (12%) and altogether the success rate was 88%. 100% implants were detected with marginal bone loss (MBL) ≤ 4 mm. The cost advantage of NSRCT (4,751 CNY) over STI (20,298 CNY) was more pronounced. Incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 129,563 CNY (STI-NSRCT) per success rate gained. It exceeded the patients’ willingness to pay value 7,533 CNY. Conclusions Clinical outcomes of NSRCT and STI could be predictable after 5-year treatment. NSRCT may be more cost-effective than STI for managing endodontically diseased teeth.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03173-xCost-effectivenessSingle-tooth implantNonsurgical root canal treatment Propensity score matching |
| spellingShingle | Hai-Ling Zang Yu Zhang Xiao-Wen Hao Li Yang Yu-Hong Liang Cost-effectiveness analysis: nonsurgical root canal treatment versus single-tooth implant BMC Oral Health Cost-effectiveness Single-tooth implant Nonsurgical root canal treatment Propensity score matching |
| title | Cost-effectiveness analysis: nonsurgical root canal treatment versus single-tooth implant |
| title_full | Cost-effectiveness analysis: nonsurgical root canal treatment versus single-tooth implant |
| title_fullStr | Cost-effectiveness analysis: nonsurgical root canal treatment versus single-tooth implant |
| title_full_unstemmed | Cost-effectiveness analysis: nonsurgical root canal treatment versus single-tooth implant |
| title_short | Cost-effectiveness analysis: nonsurgical root canal treatment versus single-tooth implant |
| title_sort | cost effectiveness analysis nonsurgical root canal treatment versus single tooth implant |
| topic | Cost-effectiveness Single-tooth implant Nonsurgical root canal treatment Propensity score matching |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03173-x |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hailingzang costeffectivenessanalysisnonsurgicalrootcanaltreatmentversussingletoothimplant AT yuzhang costeffectivenessanalysisnonsurgicalrootcanaltreatmentversussingletoothimplant AT xiaowenhao costeffectivenessanalysisnonsurgicalrootcanaltreatmentversussingletoothimplant AT liyang costeffectivenessanalysisnonsurgicalrootcanaltreatmentversussingletoothimplant AT yuhongliang costeffectivenessanalysisnonsurgicalrootcanaltreatmentversussingletoothimplant |