Search

Purpose: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify the types of economic measures currently used in implant prosthodontics and determine the degree to which cost of care is considered in the context of any positive outcome of the care provided. Materials and Methods: A literature search was conducted using the following set of terms plus some additional hand searching: "dental implants" (Mesh) AND ("cost") OR "maintenance" OR "healthcare policy" OR "access to care" OR "third party" OR "economic") AND (("1995/01/01"[PDat]:'2009/12/31"[PDat]) AND (Humans[Mesh]) AND (English[lang])). Results: After a review of the 466 titles and abstracts identified by the search, 18 articles were accepted for further consideration, as some attempt at economic outcome measures was made. An additional four articles were identified by hand searching. The 22 accepted articles were grouped into four basic categories: (1) measure of costs of treatment (direct, indirect, and maintenance costs), (2) cost-effectiveness mathematical modeling applied to simulate the lifetime paths and cost of treatment, (3) cost-effectiveness analysis/cost-minimization, and (4) willingness-to-pay, willingness-to-accept. Attempts at determining the costs of treatment varied widely. When the OMERACT filters were applied to the various measures it was felt that discrimination and/or feasibility was a problem for most of the current economic outcome measures. Conclusions: Measures of cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility are currently the gold standard; however, feasibility of such analyses is an issue. Collaboration with health economists to guide future research is highly recommended.

The functional outcomes related to treating patients afflicted with tooth loss are an important hallmark in substantiating prosthodontic intervention. The Oral Rehabilitation Outcomes Network (ORONet) conducted two international workshops to develop a core set of outcome measures, including a functional domain. The process followed the general format used in the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) workshops to develop consensus for clinical outcome measures in arthritis research, which included: developing a comprehensive list of potential outcomes in the literature; submitting them to a filter for validity, clinical discrimination, and feasibility; and ranking those measures meeting all the filter criteria for relative value. The search was conducted to include functional assessments of speech, swallowing, mastication, nutrition, sensation, and motor function as they relate to dental implant therapies. This literature review surveyed 173 papers that produced some result of these descriptors in the functional domain. Of these, 67 papers reported on functional assessments and further defined objective and subjective outcomes. Many of these results were patient-perceived improvements in function, while others were objective assessments based on established methodologies and instruments. Objective evaluations of masticatory function and speech may meet criteria for validity and discriminability for selected interventions, but are generally not feasible for routine use in clinical care settings. The current recommendation is to employ a well-validated survey instrument that covers mastication and speech, such as the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14, short form), recognizing that patient perceptions of function may differ from objective ability.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction and clinical and prosthetic outcomes of two-implant mandibular overdenture treatment with different attachment types after 10 years of function. Materials and Methods: In a crossover clinical trial, 18 edentulous subjects with complaints regarding their mandibular dentures received two implants and a new denture with magnet, ball-socket, or bar-clip attachments that were applied in a random order. At the end of the experiment, the attachment type of their choosing was fitted in the overdenture. After 10 years, 7 subjects with a ball-socket and 7 subjects with a bar-clip attachment were available for evaluation. The same questionnaire from 10 years before was completed, and subjects were asked to express their overall appreciation of their dentures on a visual analog scale (VAS). Six scales of denture complaints were constructed. Mean scale and VAS scores between initial evaluation and after 10 years were compared. In addition, marginal probing depths, Bleeding Index, and radiographic marginal bone loss were assessed. Results: There was no marked difference in satisfaction between subjects with ball-socket-and bar-clip-retained two-implant mandibular overdentures at initial evaluation and after 10 years of function. Conclusion: Patients' appreciation of their implant-retained denture was and remained high over time. Clinical parameters revealed healthy mucosal conditions and stable marginal bone levels, determined radiographically. Probing depths around implants provided with ball-socket attachments were slightly shallower than those with bar-clip attachments after 10 years of function (P

Purpose: This 10-year prospective, randomized, clinical trial investigated the treatment outcome of edentulous patients treated with mandibular overdentures retained by 2 endosseous implants compared with conventional dentures in patients with or without vestibuloplasty. Materials and Methods: One hundred fifty-one edentulous patients (5 groups) with a symphyseal mandibular bone height between 8 and 25 mm participated. Sixty-two patients were treated with an overdenture retained by 2 implants (groups 1 and 3), 59 patients were treated with a conventional denture (groups 2 and 5), and 30 patients were treated with a conventional denture after preprosthetic vestibuloplasty (group 4). Patients who received conventional dentures but preferred implants later on could undergo implant surgery after 1 year of their initial treatment, but were analyzed in their original group. The prosthetic and surgical care and aftercare were scored during a 10-year evaluation period. Results: One hundred thirty-three patients completed the 10-year follow-up evaluations. Forty-four percent of patients treated with conventional dentures switched within 10 years to implant-retained overdentures, versus 16% of the patients who were treated with conventional dentures after vestibuloplasty. On average, a greater time investment and more treatment sessions were needed in patients treated with implant-retained overdentures compared to patients treated with conventional dentures. Conclusion: Patients treated with an implant-retained overdenture need more treatment interventions and treatment time than patients treated with conventional dentures.