PURPOSE: To identify the most cost-effective approach to treatment of infrabony lesions with enamel matrix derivatives (EMD). METHODS: We incorporated costs and clinical outcomes of 12 different treatment techniques (including flap operation, EMD alone, and EMD in association with other reconstructive devices) within a decision tree model in which costs were based on insurance regulations in Germany and health outcomes followed a recent meta-analysis. The most cost-effective treatment option was identified on the basis of the maximum net benefit criterion. RESULTS: Treatment techniques using EMD were cost-efficient if the decision maker's willingness-to-pay (WTP) was at least €150-175 per incremental mm of pocket probing depth reduction and clinical attachment level gain, respectively (1-year perspective). When EMD was affordable, the maximum net benefit was achieved by treatment with EMD in conjunction with bioactive glass or bovine bone substitutes. Additional application of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or a resorbable membrane came at relatively high costs. CONCLUSIONS: If EMD use is indicated, EMD in conjunction with either bioactive glass or bovine bone substitutes is more cost-effective than EMD alone. The additional use of PRP or a resorbable membrane may only be justifiable when monetary resources for treatment are very generous.
PURPOSE: To identify the most cost-effective approach to treatment of infrabony lesions with enamel matrix derivatives (EMD). METHODS: We incorporated costs and clinical outcomes of 12 different treatment techniques (including flap operation, EMD alone, and EMD in association with other reconstructive devices) within a decision tree model in which costs were based on insurance regulations in Germany and health outcomes followed a recent meta-analysis. The most cost-effective treatment option was identified on the basis of the maximum net benefit criterion. RESULTS: Treatment techniques using EMD were cost-efficient if the decision maker's willingness-to-pay (WTP) was at least €150-175 per incremental mm of pocket probing depth reduction and clinical attachment level gain, respectively (1-year perspective). When EMD was affordable, the maximum net benefit was achieved by treatment with EMD in conjunction with bioactive glass or bovine bone substitutes. Additional application of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or a resorbable membrane came at relatively high costs. CONCLUSIONS: If EMD use is indicated, EMD in conjunction with either bioactive glass or bovine bone substitutes is more cost-effective than EMD alone. The additional use of PRP or a resorbable membrane may only be justifiable when monetary resources for treatment are very generous.
Authors: Fabiana Paulino Marques; Sheila Jean McNeill Ingham; Andrea Forgas; Carlos Eduardo da Silveira Franciozi; Pedro Henrique Sasaki; Rene Jorge Abdalla Journal: Acta Ortop Bras Date: 2014 Impact factor: 0.513