Premium
The cost‐effectiveness of supportive periodontal care: a global perspective
Author(s) -
Pennington Mark,
Heasman Peter,
Gaunt Francesca,
Güntsch Arndt,
Ivanovski Saso,
Imazato Satoshi,
Rajapakse Sunethra,
Allen Edith,
Flemmig Thomas,
Sanz Mariano,
Vernazza Chris
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
journal of clinical periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.456
H-Index - 151
eISSN - 1600-051X
pISSN - 0303-6979
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-051x.2011.01722.x
Subject(s) - private practice , subsidy , valuation (finance) , medicine , specialist care , dentistry , business , family medicine , finance , primary care , economics , market economy
Pennington M, Heasman P, Gaunt F, Güntsch A, Ivanovski S, Imazato S, Rajapakse S, Allen E, Flemmig T, Sanz M, Vernazza C. The cost‐effectiveness of supportive periodontal care: a global perspective. J Clin Periodontol 2011; doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐051X.2011.01722.x. Abstract Aim: To evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of supportive periodontal care (SPC) provided in generalist and periodontal specialist practices under publicly subsidized or private dental care. Material and methods: SPC cost data and the costs of replacing teeth were synthesized with estimates of the effectiveness of SPC in preventing attachment and tooth loss and adjusted for differences in clinician's time. Incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios were calculated for both outcomes assuming a time horizon of 30 years. Results: SPC in specialist periodontal practice provides improved outcomes but at higher costs than SPC provided by publicly subsidized or private systems. SPC in specialist periodontal practice is usually more cost‐effective than in private dental practice. For private dental practices in Spain, United Kingdom and Australia, specialist SPC is cost‐effective at modest values of attachment loss averted. Variation in the threshold arises primarily from clinician's time. Conclusion: SPC in specialist periodontal practice represents good value for money for patients (publicly subsidized or private) in the United Kingdom and Australia and in Spain if they place relatively modest values on avoiding attachment loss. For patients in Ireland, Germany, Japan and the United State, a higher valuation on avoiding attachment loss is needed to justify SPC in private or specialist practices.