Cost-effectiveness of repairing versus replacing composite or amalgam restorations

2016-08-26 | journal article. A publication with affiliation to the University of Göttingen.

Jump to: Cite & Linked | Documents & Media | Details | Version history

Cite this publication

​Cost-effectiveness of repairing versus replacing composite or amalgam restorations​
Kanzow, P. ; Wiegand, A.   & Schwendicke, F.​ (2016) 
Journal of Dentistry54 pp. 41​-47​.​ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.08.008 

Documents & Media

License

GRO License GRO License

Details

Authors
Kanzow, Philipp ; Wiegand, Annette ; Schwendicke, Falk
Abstract
Objectives: Repairing instead of replacing partially defective composite or amalgam restorations might reduce the initial treatment risks and costs, but could be less advantageous long-term due to repeated re-interventions being required. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of repairing versus replacing composite or amalgam restorations. Methods: A mixed public-private-payer perspective from the German healthcare setting was adopted. A permanent molar with a three-surfaced partially defective composite or amalgam restoration in need of repair or replacement was modelled. Risks of complications after repair or complete replacement were derived by a rapid systematic literature review. The health outcome measure was tooth retention years. Costs were estimated from the German public and private fee catalogues. Monte-Carlo microsimulations were performed and incremental-cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used to express cost differences per gain or loss of effectiveness. Results: Compared with complete composite replacement, composite repairs were marginally more costly and more effective (€326 versus €321; 24.7 versus 24.0 years; ICER: €7.14). Amalgam repairs were more costly and more effective than complete replacement (€467 versus €326; 24.3 versus 23.7 years; ICER: €235). If composite repair costs were €<67 or complete replacement costs €>166, composite repair was always cost-effective. This was not the case for amalgam repair. The size of the restoration, the reason for repair/replacement, and patients' age were found to influence the cost-effectiveness. Conclusions: Repair was found to be more effective, but not necessarily less costly than complete replacement of restorations. Clinical significance: Repairing instead of replacing partially defective restorations is likely to retain teeth for longer compared with complete replacement. When considering cost-effectiveness, repairing composite can be recommended more strongly than repairing amalgam restorations.
Issue Date
26-August-2016
Journal
Journal of Dentistry 
Organization
Poliklinik für Präventive Zahnmedizin, Parodontologie und Kariologie 
ISSN
1879-176X
eISSN
0300-5712
Language
English
Subject(s)
Decision-making; Economic evaluation; Mathematical modelling; Minimally invasive dentistry; Restoration repair; Restorative dentistry

Reference

Citations


Social Media