Literature DB >> 29928832

Amalgam Alternatives: Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information Analysis.

F Schwendicke1, G Göstemeyer1, M Stolpe2, J Krois1.   

Abstract

We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of amalgam alternatives-namely, incrementally placed composites (IComp), composites placed in bulk (BComp), and glass ionomer cements (GIC). In a sensitivity analysis, we also included composite inlays (CompI) and incrementally placed bulk-fills (IBComp). Moreover, the value of information (VOI) regarding the effectiveness of all strategies was determined. A mixed public-private-payer perspective in the context of Germany was adopted. Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed to yield effectiveness estimates (relative risk [RR] of failure). A 3-surfaced restoration on a permanent molar in initially 30-y-old patients was followed over patients' lifetime using a Markov model. Restorative and endodontic complications were modeled; our outcome parameter was the years of tooth retention. Costs were derived from insurance fee items. Monte Carlo microsimulations were used to estimate cost-effectiveness, cost-effectiveness acceptability, and VOI. Initially, BComp/GIC were less costly (110.11 euros) than IComp (146.82 euros) but also more prone to failures (RRs [95% credible intervals (CrI)] were 1.6 [0.8 to 3.4] for BComp and 1.3 [0.5 to 5.6] for GIC). When following patients over their lifetime, IComp was most effective (mean [SD], 41.9 [1] years) and least costly (2,076 [135] euros), hence dominating both BComp (40.5 [1] years; 2,284 [126] euros) and GIC (41.2 years; 2,177 [126] euros) in 90% of simulations. Eliminating the uncertainty around the effectiveness of the strategies was worth 3.99 euros per restoration, translating into annual economic savings of 87.8 million euros for payers. Including CompI and IBComp into our analyses had only a minimal impact, and our findings were robust in further sensitivity analyses. In conclusion, the initial savings by BComp/GIC compared with IComp are very likely to be compensated by the higher risk of failures and costs for retreatments. CompI and IBComp do not seem cost-effective. All alternatives are likely to be inferior to amalgam. The VOI was considerable, and future studies may yield significant economic benefits.

Entities:  

Keywords:  decision making; economic evaluation; evidence-based dentistry/health care; mathematical modeling; permanent dental restoration; restorative dentistry

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29928832     DOI: 10.1177/0022034518782671

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dent Res        ISSN: 0022-0345            Impact factor:   6.116


  3 in total

1.  Application of choosing by advantages to determine the optimal site for solar power plants.

Authors:  Hui Hwang Goh; Chunyu Li; Dongdong Zhang; Wei Dai; Chee Shen Lim; Tonni Agustiono Kurniawan; Kai Chen Goh
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 4.996

2.  Is amalgam removal in patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms cost-effective? A prospective cohort and decision modelling study in Norway.

Authors:  Admassu N Lamu; Lars Björkman; Harald J Hamre; Terje Alræk; Frauke Musial; Bjarne Robberstad
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-04-29       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Amalgam Phase-Down Part 1: UK-Based Posterior Restorative Material and Technique Use.

Authors:  O Bailey; C R Vernazza; S Stone; L Ternent; A-G Roche; C Lynch
Journal:  JDR Clin Trans Res       Date:  2020-12-10
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.