Abstract:

Aim: Aim of this review is to compare cost-effectiveness in the implant and prosthesis for missing teeth, and to explore the methods used in cost-effectiveness analysis using published studies. Methods: A systematic review was conducted on cost-effectiveness analysis in the dental implant and prosthesis for single, partial or complete replacement via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCO and Cochrane Library databases. Review was restricted to published articles in English language without time limit. Reporting quality assessment of dental replacement cost-effectiveness analysis used the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) extended checklist guidelines. Findings: Of the 526 publications identified initially, a total of 17 studies on the cost-effectiveness of dental implants and prosthesis were included in the systematic review. Of these, 8 (47.1%) were originated in the last four years. Most of articles (n=8, 47.1%) were on the cost-effectiveness for single- tooth replacement. The median of reporting quality of studies, assessed by the CHEC extended checklist is 74% (from 55% to 90%). Ten studies were able to define the most cost-effective among the interventions compared. Most studies were in concurrence that over the long term, dental implants represent a cost-effective treatment option. The methodology for the economic evaluation of prosthetic treatments is quite complex. Although there are concepts such as QAPY and QATY introduced into the literature, their applications have remained rather limited and not developed. Conclusion: The majority of studies were able to provide conclusions regarding the most cost-effective intervention among the different options compared: this will assist in healthcare decision-making and resource allocation. For edentation, implant was cost-effective treatment option in comparison with dental prosthesis.

Keywords: