PURPOSE: The study's aim was to report long-term costs in edentulous patients treated with mandibular implant-supported prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety patients were divided into four groups based on the type of implant prosthesis (fixed or overdenture) and treatment year. Records were obtained from dental charts, and an economic analysis from the patient's perspective was conducted. Clinical time associated with various procedures was measured and applied to the four groups. Salary rates by age, occupation, and gender were used to value patients' time. Direct clinical and time costs over 10 years were converted to 2002 Canadian dollars using the Consumer Price Index and discounted at a 3% rate. A sensitivity analysis at an equal salary rate was carried out to test the robustness of the time costs. RESULTS: Initial treatment and maintenance costs over the observation period were significantly higher for fixed compared to overdenture prostheses. A significant improvement in maintenance costs for the first patient group treated with fixed prostheses was observed over the follow-up period. Longer term (15 years) treatment costs for the initial two groups were significantly higher for the fixed group. The sensitivity analysis at an equal salary rate demonstrated the same trend: Time costs were significantly higher for the fixed groups. CONCLUSION: Long-term treatment costs indicated that the mandibular overdenture was a less expensive treatment compared to the fixed implant prosthesis.
PURPOSE: The study's aim was to report long-term costs in edentulouspatients treated with mandibular implant-supported prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety patients were divided into four groups based on the type of implant prosthesis (fixed or overdenture) and treatment year. Records were obtained from dental charts, and an economic analysis from the patient's perspective was conducted. Clinical time associated with various procedures was measured and applied to the four groups. Salary rates by age, occupation, and gender were used to value patients' time. Direct clinical and time costs over 10 years were converted to 2002 Canadian dollars using the Consumer Price Index and discounted at a 3% rate. A sensitivity analysis at an equal salary rate was carried out to test the robustness of the time costs. RESULTS: Initial treatment and maintenance costs over the observation period were significantly higher for fixed compared to overdenture prostheses. A significant improvement in maintenance costs for the first patient group treated with fixed prostheses was observed over the follow-up period. Longer term (15 years) treatment costs for the initial two groups were significantly higher for the fixed group. The sensitivity analysis at an equal salary rate demonstrated the same trend: Time costs were significantly higher for the fixed groups. CONCLUSION: Long-term treatment costs indicated that the mandibular overdenture was a less expensive treatment compared to the fixed implant prosthesis.