Cost estimation of single-implant treatment in the periodontally healthy patient after 16–22 years of follow-up
, , , , , . Cost estimation of single-implant treatment in the periodontally healthy patient after 16–22 years of follow-up. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 00, 2014; 1–9.
Abstract
Background
Costs
for single-implant treatment are mostly described for the initial
treatment. Information on the additional cost related to aftercare is
scarce.
Objective
To
make an estimation of complication costs of single implants in
periodontally healthy patients after 16–22 years and to compare costs
for various prosthetic designs.
Materials and methods
Patients
with a single implant were recalled for a clinical examination and file
investigation. Prosthetic designs included single-tooth (ST) and
CeraOne (CO) abutments supporting a porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM),
all-ceramic (CER), or gold-acrylic (ACR) crown. Costs related to
failures or technical, biologic, and aesthetic complications were
retrieved from patient's records. Total and yearly additional
complication costs were calculated as a percentage relative to the
initial cost. Chair time needed to solve the complication was recorded
and prosthetic designs were compared by Kruskal–Wallis tests.
Results
Fifty
patients with 59 surviving implants were clinically investigated.
Additional complication costs after a mean follow-up of 18.5 years
amounted to 23% (range 0–110%) of the initial treatment cost. In total,
39% of implants presented with no costs, whereas 22% and 8% encountered
additional costs over 50% and 75%, respectively. In 2%, the complication
costs exceeded the initial cost. The mean yearly additional cost was
1.2% (range 0–6%) and mean complication time per implant was 67 min
(range 0–345 min). Differences between prosthetic designs (CO, ST-PFM,
ST-ACR) were statistically significant for total cost (P = 0.011), yearly cost (P = 0.023), and time (P = 0.023). Pairwise comparison revealed significant lower costs for CO compared with ST-ACR reconstructions.
Conclusion
Patients
should be informed about additional costs related to complications with
single implants. The mean additional cost spent on complications was
almost one-quarter of the initial treatment price. A majority of
implants presented with lower additional costs, whereas the highest
complication costs were related to a smaller group with 22% of the
implants needing more than half of the initial cost for complication
management. Expenses were significantly different for various prosthetic
designs.
Comments