- Email: [email protected]
A cost comparison of mandibular two-implant overdenture and conventional denture treatment
WINDHORN
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
2. Mizrahi B, Thunthy KH, Finger I. Radiographic/surgical template incorporating metal telescopic tubes for accurate implant placement. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1998;10:757-65. 3. Kennedy BD, Collins TA Jr, Kline PC. Simplified guide for precise implant placement: a technical note. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13: 684-8. 4. Minoretti R, Merz BR, Triaca A. Predetermined implant positioning by means of a novel guide template technique. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11:266-72. 5. Koyanagi K. Development and clinical application of a surgical guide for optimal implant placement. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:548-52. 6. Owings JR Jr. Virtual imaging guiding implant surgery. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2003;24:333-6, 338, 340. 7. Cehreli MC, Calis AC, Sahin S. A dual-purpose guide for optimum placement of dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:640-3. 8. Engelman MJ, Sorensen JA, Moy P. Optimum placement of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1988;59:467-73. 9. Higginbottom FL, Wilson TG. Three-dimensional templates for placement of root-form dental implants: a technical note. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:787-93. 10. Garber DA, Belser UC. Restoration-driven implant placement with restoration-generated site development. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1995;16:796, 798-802, 804.
Noteworthy Abstracts of the Current Literature
11. Kopp KC, Koslow AH, Abdo OS. Predictable implant placement with a diagnostic/surgical template and advanced radiographic imaging. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:611-5. 12. Sarment DP, Sukovic P, Clinthorne N. Accuracy of implant placement with a stereolithographic surgical guide. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:571-7. 13. Chiche GJ, Block MS, Pinault A. Implant surgical template for partially edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4:289-92. Reprint requests to: LTC RICHARD J. WINDHORN 67TH CSH UNIT 26610, BOX 546 APO AE 09244-0546 WUERZBURG, GERMANY FAX: 49-931-804-3849 E-MAIL: [email protected] 0022-3913/$30.00
doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.04.028
A cost comparison of mandibular two-implant overdenture and conventional denture treatment Takanashi Y, Penrod JR, Lund JP, Feine JS. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17: 181-6.
Purpose. This article compares the cost of mandibular two-implant overdenture treatment to that of conventional denture treatment in an academic teaching hospital. Materials and Methods. Sixty edentulous patients (aged 65 to 75 years) participated in a randomized clinical trial. All patients received a new maxillary complete denture and either a mandibular conventional denture (n=30) or an implant overdenture on two unsplinted implants (n=30). Resource-based microcosting of direct and indirect costs (eg, expenses and time cost to patients) of all scheduled and unscheduled visits was conducted through 1 year following delivery of the prostheses. Results. Mean direct costs (1999 CD dollars) for scheduled visits in the implant and conventional groups were 2,332 dollars and 814 dollars, respectively, and mean indirect costs were 1,150 dollars and 810 dollars, respectively. Differences between the two groups were significant. Twenty-six patients in each group had unscheduled visits during the study at a median direct cost for the overdentures of 85 dollars and 64 dollars for the conventional dentures. Median indirect costs for unscheduled visits were 163 dollars and 202 dollars, respectively. These differences were not significant. Mean total costs of the overdentures were 4,245 dollars and 2,316 dollars for the conventional dentures, and the between-group difference was significant. Conclusion. The direct cost of mandibular two-implant overdenture treatment was 2.4 times higher than that of conventional denture treatment. When indirect costs were added, the implant-to-conventional total cost ratio estimate was 1.8. These cost data can now be combined with estimates of the efficacy of the two types of prosthesis so practitioners and patients can make informed decisions about these prosthodontic treatment concepts.—Reprinted with permission of Quintessence Publishing.
AUGUST 2004
199
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
2. Mizrahi B, Thunthy KH, Finger I. Radiographic/surgical template incorporating metal telescopic tubes for accurate implant placement. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1998;10:757-65. 3. Kennedy BD, Collins TA Jr, Kline PC. Simplified guide for precise implant placement: a technical note. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13: 684-8. 4. Minoretti R, Merz BR, Triaca A. Predetermined implant positioning by means of a novel guide template technique. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11:266-72. 5. Koyanagi K. Development and clinical application of a surgical guide for optimal implant placement. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:548-52. 6. Owings JR Jr. Virtual imaging guiding implant surgery. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2003;24:333-6, 338, 340. 7. Cehreli MC, Calis AC, Sahin S. A dual-purpose guide for optimum placement of dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:640-3. 8. Engelman MJ, Sorensen JA, Moy P. Optimum placement of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1988;59:467-73. 9. Higginbottom FL, Wilson TG. Three-dimensional templates for placement of root-form dental implants: a technical note. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:787-93. 10. Garber DA, Belser UC. Restoration-driven implant placement with restoration-generated site development. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1995;16:796, 798-802, 804.
Noteworthy Abstracts of the Current Literature
11. Kopp KC, Koslow AH, Abdo OS. Predictable implant placement with a diagnostic/surgical template and advanced radiographic imaging. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:611-5. 12. Sarment DP, Sukovic P, Clinthorne N. Accuracy of implant placement with a stereolithographic surgical guide. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:571-7. 13. Chiche GJ, Block MS, Pinault A. Implant surgical template for partially edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4:289-92. Reprint requests to: LTC RICHARD J. WINDHORN 67TH CSH UNIT 26610, BOX 546 APO AE 09244-0546 WUERZBURG, GERMANY FAX: 49-931-804-3849 E-MAIL: [email protected] 0022-3913/$30.00
doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.04.028
A cost comparison of mandibular two-implant overdenture and conventional denture treatment Takanashi Y, Penrod JR, Lund JP, Feine JS. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17: 181-6.
Purpose. This article compares the cost of mandibular two-implant overdenture treatment to that of conventional denture treatment in an academic teaching hospital. Materials and Methods. Sixty edentulous patients (aged 65 to 75 years) participated in a randomized clinical trial. All patients received a new maxillary complete denture and either a mandibular conventional denture (n=30) or an implant overdenture on two unsplinted implants (n=30). Resource-based microcosting of direct and indirect costs (eg, expenses and time cost to patients) of all scheduled and unscheduled visits was conducted through 1 year following delivery of the prostheses. Results. Mean direct costs (1999 CD dollars) for scheduled visits in the implant and conventional groups were 2,332 dollars and 814 dollars, respectively, and mean indirect costs were 1,150 dollars and 810 dollars, respectively. Differences between the two groups were significant. Twenty-six patients in each group had unscheduled visits during the study at a median direct cost for the overdentures of 85 dollars and 64 dollars for the conventional dentures. Median indirect costs for unscheduled visits were 163 dollars and 202 dollars, respectively. These differences were not significant. Mean total costs of the overdentures were 4,245 dollars and 2,316 dollars for the conventional dentures, and the between-group difference was significant. Conclusion. The direct cost of mandibular two-implant overdenture treatment was 2.4 times higher than that of conventional denture treatment. When indirect costs were added, the implant-to-conventional total cost ratio estimate was 1.8. These cost data can now be combined with estimates of the efficacy of the two types of prosthesis so practitioners and patients can make informed decisions about these prosthodontic treatment concepts.—Reprinted with permission of Quintessence Publishing.
AUGUST 2004
199