Premium
Cost‐effectiveness of tooth replacement strategies for partially dentate elderly: a randomized controlled clinical trial
Author(s) -
McKenna Gerald,
Allen Finbarr,
Woods Noel,
O'Mahony Denis,
Cronin Michael,
DaMata Cristiane,
Normand Charles
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
community dentistry and oral epidemiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.061
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1600-0528
pISSN - 0301-5661
DOI - 10.1111/cdoe.12085
Subject(s) - medicine , randomized controlled trial , dentistry , clinical trial , cost effectiveness , surgery , risk analysis (engineering)
Objective To conduct a cost‐effectiveness analysis comparing two different tooth replacement strategies for partially dentate older patients, namely partial removable dental prostheses ( RDP ) and functionally orientated treatment based on the shortened dental arch concept ( SDA ). Methods Ninety‐two partially dentate older patients completed a randomized controlled clinical trial. Patients were randomly allocated to two treatment groups: the RDP group and the SDA group. Treatment effect was measured using impact on oral health–related quality of life ( OH r QOL ), and the costs involved in providing and maintaining care were recorded for all patients. Patients were followed for 12 months after treatment intervention. All treatment was provided by a single operator. Results The total cost of achieving the minimally important clinical difference ( MID ) in OH r QOL for an average patient in the RDP group was €464.64. For the SDA group, the cost of achieving the MID for an average patient was €252.00. The cost‐effectiveness ratio was therefore 1:1.84 in favour of SDA treatment. Conclusion With an increasingly ageing population, many patients will continue to benefit from removable prostheses to replace their missing natural teeth. From a purely economic standpoint, the results from this analysis suggest that the treatment of partially dentate older adults should be focused on functionally orientated treatment because it is simply more cost‐effective.