Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
College of Dentistry, Ajman University, Ajman City, UAE.
Evid Based Dent. 2024 Sep;25(3):129-130. doi: 10.1038/s41432-024-01050-2. Epub 2024 Aug 19.
A systematic appraisal without statistical aggregation.
The researchers utilized Ovid (Medline), Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases. They performed a comprehensive literature search, which concluded in July 2023. References of selected studies and systematic reviews were examined for additional relevant articles.
The review included studies (randomized controlled trials [RCTs], systematic reviews [SRs], narrative reviews, retrospective studies, cross-sectional studies, case series, case reports) discussing the cost-effectiveness of preserving teeth versus replacing them with implants in patients with severe periodontal disease. Non-English publications, letters, conference abstracts, and brief reports were excluded.
Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts using a systematic review screening tool, resolving conflicts with a third reviewer. The extracted data included study design, patient demographics, treatment details, economic models, costs, and clinical implications. Quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools, with scores converted to percentages.
A total of 633 studies were identified for periodontal treatment, with 9 included after screening, while 114 studies were identified for dental implants, of which 3 were included after screening. The included studies were published between 2008 and 2018, predominantly from Germany, and mainly comprised retrospective designs, along with some prospective and model-based analyses. Follow-up periods ranged from 36 months to 33 years. Treatment costs were found to increase with disease severity, with surgical treatments being more expensive than nonsurgical ones, and supportive periodontal treatment (SPT) representing the highest cost share in periodontal treatment. Maintaining implants proved more costly than maintaining teeth, especially in cases of peri-implantitis. For chronic periodontitis, total treatment costs per tooth were €222 ± €98 over 18.7 years, and for aggressive periodontitis, €267 ± €148 over 16.9 years. Regular SPT cost €806 per tooth per year over 28.7 years, with significant cost variations across studies. A 2013 study found that maintaining implants was five times costlier than maintaining teeth, particularly if peri-implantitis developed. A 2018 study indicated that implant-supported crowns (ISCs) were the most expensive therapy. Only one study directly compared costs within the same patient, finding periodontal treatment to be more cost-effective than implants. Costs also increased with irregular SPT, aggressive periodontitis, and specialist treatments compared to regular SPT, chronic periodontitis, and treatments by general dental practitioners. The quality of included studies scored between 45% and 84.6%, indicating moderate to high quality, with methodological issues including unclear strategies for handling confounding factors and incomplete follow-up.
Implants are effective for replacing missing teeth but are associated with higher long-term costs and complications. Maintaining periodontally compromised teeth is generally more cost-effective, therefore, maintenance costs and potential complications should be carefully considered in treatment planning. There is a need for studies comparing the long-term cost-effectiveness of saving teeth compared to replacing them with implants, considering several variables for informed clinical decision-making.
系统评价,不进行统计汇总。
研究人员利用 Ovid(医学索引在线)、Embase、Web of Science 和 CINAHL 数据库进行了全面的文献检索,检索工作于 2023 年 7 月结束。还查阅了选定研究和系统评价的参考文献,以寻找其他相关文章。
综述纳入了研究(随机对照试验[RCT]、系统评价[SR]、叙述性综述、回顾性研究、横断面研究、病例系列、病例报告),讨论了严重牙周病患者保留牙齿与用种植体替代牙齿的成本效益。排除非英语出版物、信件、会议摘要和简短报告。
两名评审员使用系统综述筛选工具独立筛选标题和摘要,并由第三名评审员解决冲突。提取的数据包括研究设计、患者人口统计学、治疗细节、经济模型、成本和临床意义。使用 Joanna Briggs 研究所(JBI)的关键评估工具评估质量,并将分数转换为百分比。
共确定了 633 项牙周病治疗研究,经过筛选后纳入了 9 项,确定了 114 项关于牙科种植体的研究,经过筛选后纳入了 3 项。纳入的研究发表于 2008 年至 2018 年,主要来自德国,主要采用回顾性设计,同时也有一些前瞻性和基于模型的分析。随访时间从 36 个月到 33 年不等。研究发现,随着疾病严重程度的增加,治疗成本也会增加,手术治疗比非手术治疗更昂贵,牙周支持治疗(SPT)在牙周病治疗中占比最高。保持种植体比保持牙齿更昂贵,尤其是在发生种植体周围炎的情况下。对于慢性牙周炎,每颗牙每 18.7 年的总治疗成本为 222 欧元±98 欧元,对于侵袭性牙周炎,每颗牙每 16.9 年的总治疗成本为 267 欧元±148 欧元。每颗牙每年进行 SPT 的费用为 806 欧元,28.7 年期间存在显著的费用变化。2013 年的一项研究发现,保持种植体的费用是保持牙齿的五倍,尤其是如果发生种植体周围炎。2018 年的一项研究表明,种植体支持的牙冠(ISCs)是最昂贵的治疗方法。只有一项研究直接在同一患者内比较了成本,发现牙周病治疗比种植体更具成本效益。与定期 SPT、慢性牙周炎和普通牙医治疗相比,不规律的 SPT、侵袭性牙周炎和专科治疗也会增加成本。纳入研究的质量评分为 45%至 84.6%,表明质量为中等到高,存在方法学问题,包括处理混杂因素的策略不明确和随访不完整。
种植体对于替代缺失的牙齿是有效的,但长期成本更高,并发症更多。保留牙周病受损的牙齿通常更具成本效益,因此,在治疗计划中应仔细考虑维持成本和潜在并发症。需要进行研究,比较保留牙齿与用种植体替代牙齿的长期成本效益,考虑多种变量,以便做出明智的临床决策。