保持牙周受损的牙齿似乎比用种植牙替换更划算。

Q3 Dentistry Evidence-based dentistry Pub Date : 2024-08-19 DOI:10.1038/s41432-024-01050-2
Kelvin I. Afrashtehfar, Nasser M. Assery, Khaled A. K. Alblooshi, Patrick R. Schmidlin
{"title":"保持牙周受损的牙齿似乎比用种植牙替换更划算。","authors":"Kelvin I. Afrashtehfar, Nasser M. Assery, Khaled A. K. Alblooshi, Patrick R. Schmidlin","doi":"10.1038/s41432-024-01050-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A systematic appraisal without statistical aggregation. The researchers utilized Ovid (Medline), Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases. They performed a comprehensive literature search, which concluded in July 2023. References of selected studies and systematic reviews were examined for additional relevant articles. The review included studies (randomized controlled trials [RCTs], systematic reviews [SRs], narrative reviews, retrospective studies, cross-sectional studies, case series, case reports) discussing the cost-effectiveness of preserving teeth versus replacing them with implants in patients with severe periodontal disease. Non-English publications, letters, conference abstracts, and brief reports were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts using a systematic review screening tool, resolving conflicts with a third reviewer. The extracted data included study design, patient demographics, treatment details, economic models, costs, and clinical implications. Quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools, with scores converted to percentages. A total of 633 studies were identified for periodontal treatment, with 9 included after screening, while 114 studies were identified for dental implants, of which 3 were included after screening. The included studies were published between 2008 and 2018, predominantly from Germany, and mainly comprised retrospective designs, along with some prospective and model-based analyses. Follow-up periods ranged from 36 months to 33 years. Treatment costs were found to increase with disease severity, with surgical treatments being more expensive than nonsurgical ones, and supportive periodontal treatment (SPT) representing the highest cost share in periodontal treatment. Maintaining implants proved more costly than maintaining teeth, especially in cases of peri-implantitis. For chronic periodontitis, total treatment costs per tooth were €222 ± €98 over 18.7 years, and for aggressive periodontitis, €267 ± €148 over 16.9 years. Regular SPT cost €806 per tooth per year over 28.7 years, with significant cost variations across studies. A 2013 study found that maintaining implants was five times costlier than maintaining teeth, particularly if peri-implantitis developed. A 2018 study indicated that implant-supported crowns (ISCs) were the most expensive therapy. Only one study directly compared costs within the same patient, finding periodontal treatment to be more cost-effective than implants. Costs also increased with irregular SPT, aggressive periodontitis, and specialist treatments compared to regular SPT, chronic periodontitis, and treatments by general dental practitioners. The quality of included studies scored between 45% and 84.6%, indicating moderate to high quality, with methodological issues including unclear strategies for handling confounding factors and incomplete follow-up. Implants are effective for replacing missing teeth but are associated with higher long-term costs and complications. Maintaining periodontally compromised teeth is generally more cost-effective, therefore, maintenance costs and potential complications should be carefully considered in treatment planning. There is a need for studies comparing the long-term cost-effectiveness of saving teeth compared to replacing them with implants, considering several variables for informed clinical decision-making.","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":"25 3","pages":"129-130"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-024-01050-2.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Maintaining periodontally compromised teeth seems more cost-effective than replacing them with dental implants\",\"authors\":\"Kelvin I. Afrashtehfar, Nasser M. Assery, Khaled A. K. Alblooshi, Patrick R. Schmidlin\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41432-024-01050-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A systematic appraisal without statistical aggregation. The researchers utilized Ovid (Medline), Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases. They performed a comprehensive literature search, which concluded in July 2023. References of selected studies and systematic reviews were examined for additional relevant articles. The review included studies (randomized controlled trials [RCTs], systematic reviews [SRs], narrative reviews, retrospective studies, cross-sectional studies, case series, case reports) discussing the cost-effectiveness of preserving teeth versus replacing them with implants in patients with severe periodontal disease. Non-English publications, letters, conference abstracts, and brief reports were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts using a systematic review screening tool, resolving conflicts with a third reviewer. The extracted data included study design, patient demographics, treatment details, economic models, costs, and clinical implications. Quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools, with scores converted to percentages. A total of 633 studies were identified for periodontal treatment, with 9 included after screening, while 114 studies were identified for dental implants, of which 3 were included after screening. The included studies were published between 2008 and 2018, predominantly from Germany, and mainly comprised retrospective designs, along with some prospective and model-based analyses. Follow-up periods ranged from 36 months to 33 years. Treatment costs were found to increase with disease severity, with surgical treatments being more expensive than nonsurgical ones, and supportive periodontal treatment (SPT) representing the highest cost share in periodontal treatment. Maintaining implants proved more costly than maintaining teeth, especially in cases of peri-implantitis. For chronic periodontitis, total treatment costs per tooth were €222 ± €98 over 18.7 years, and for aggressive periodontitis, €267 ± €148 over 16.9 years. Regular SPT cost €806 per tooth per year over 28.7 years, with significant cost variations across studies. A 2013 study found that maintaining implants was five times costlier than maintaining teeth, particularly if peri-implantitis developed. A 2018 study indicated that implant-supported crowns (ISCs) were the most expensive therapy. Only one study directly compared costs within the same patient, finding periodontal treatment to be more cost-effective than implants. Costs also increased with irregular SPT, aggressive periodontitis, and specialist treatments compared to regular SPT, chronic periodontitis, and treatments by general dental practitioners. The quality of included studies scored between 45% and 84.6%, indicating moderate to high quality, with methodological issues including unclear strategies for handling confounding factors and incomplete follow-up. Implants are effective for replacing missing teeth but are associated with higher long-term costs and complications. Maintaining periodontally compromised teeth is generally more cost-effective, therefore, maintenance costs and potential complications should be carefully considered in treatment planning. There is a need for studies comparing the long-term cost-effectiveness of saving teeth compared to replacing them with implants, considering several variables for informed clinical decision-making.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence-based dentistry\",\"volume\":\"25 3\",\"pages\":\"129-130\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-024-01050-2.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence-based dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-024-01050-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-024-01050-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

设计数据来源:无统计汇总的系统评价:研究人员使用了 Ovid(Medline)、Embase、Web of Science 和 CINAHL 数据库。他们进行了全面的文献检索,该检索于 2023 年 7 月结束。研究人员还查阅了所选研究和系统综述的参考文献,以获取更多相关文章:综述包括讨论严重牙周病患者保留牙齿与用种植体替换牙齿的成本效益的研究(随机对照试验[RCT]、系统综述[SR]、叙述性综述、回顾性研究、横断面研究、病例系列、病例报告)。非英文出版物、信件、会议摘要和简要报告均被排除在外:两位审稿人使用系统性综述筛选工具独立筛选标题和摘要,并与第三位审稿人解决冲突。提取的数据包括研究设计、患者人口统计学、治疗细节、经济模型、成本和临床影响。采用乔安娜-布里格斯研究所(Joanna Briggs Institute,JBI)的批判性评价工具对研究质量进行评估,并将分数转换为百分比:结果:共确定了 633 项牙周治疗研究,其中 9 项经筛选后纳入;确定了 114 项种植牙研究,其中 3 项经筛选后纳入。纳入的研究发表于 2008 年至 2018 年,主要来自德国,主要包括回顾性设计,以及一些前瞻性和基于模型的分析。随访时间从 36 个月到 33 年不等。研究发现,治疗费用随着疾病严重程度的增加而增加,手术治疗比非手术治疗更昂贵,而支持性牙周治疗(SPT)在牙周治疗中所占的费用比例最高。事实证明,维护种植体比维护牙齿更昂贵,尤其是在种植体周围炎的情况下。对于慢性牙周炎,每颗牙齿的总治疗费用为 222 欧元 ± 98 欧元,历时 18.7 年;对于侵袭性牙周炎,每颗牙齿的总治疗费用为 267 欧元 ± 148 欧元,历时 16.9 年。在28.7年的时间里,每颗牙齿每年的常规SPT费用为806欧元,不同研究的费用差异很大。2013 年的一项研究发现,维护种植体的成本是维护牙齿成本的五倍,尤其是在发生种植体周围炎的情况下。2018 年的一项研究表明,种植体支撑冠(ISC)是最昂贵的治疗方法。只有一项研究直接比较了同一患者的费用,结果发现牙周治疗比种植体更具成本效益。与定期 SPT、慢性牙周炎和普通牙科医生治疗相比,不规则 SPT、侵袭性牙周炎和专科医生治疗的费用也有所增加。纳入研究的质量得分介于45%和84.6%之间,表明研究质量处于中上水平,存在的方法学问题包括处理混杂因素的策略不明确和随访不完整:结论:种植体能有效替代缺失的牙齿,但长期成本和并发症较高。维护牙周受损的牙齿通常更具成本效益,因此在制定治疗计划时应仔细考虑维护成本和潜在并发症。有必要进行研究,比较保留牙齿和用种植体替换牙齿的长期成本效益,同时考虑多个变量,以便做出明智的临床决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Maintaining periodontally compromised teeth seems more cost-effective than replacing them with dental implants
A systematic appraisal without statistical aggregation. The researchers utilized Ovid (Medline), Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases. They performed a comprehensive literature search, which concluded in July 2023. References of selected studies and systematic reviews were examined for additional relevant articles. The review included studies (randomized controlled trials [RCTs], systematic reviews [SRs], narrative reviews, retrospective studies, cross-sectional studies, case series, case reports) discussing the cost-effectiveness of preserving teeth versus replacing them with implants in patients with severe periodontal disease. Non-English publications, letters, conference abstracts, and brief reports were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts using a systematic review screening tool, resolving conflicts with a third reviewer. The extracted data included study design, patient demographics, treatment details, economic models, costs, and clinical implications. Quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools, with scores converted to percentages. A total of 633 studies were identified for periodontal treatment, with 9 included after screening, while 114 studies were identified for dental implants, of which 3 were included after screening. The included studies were published between 2008 and 2018, predominantly from Germany, and mainly comprised retrospective designs, along with some prospective and model-based analyses. Follow-up periods ranged from 36 months to 33 years. Treatment costs were found to increase with disease severity, with surgical treatments being more expensive than nonsurgical ones, and supportive periodontal treatment (SPT) representing the highest cost share in periodontal treatment. Maintaining implants proved more costly than maintaining teeth, especially in cases of peri-implantitis. For chronic periodontitis, total treatment costs per tooth were €222 ± €98 over 18.7 years, and for aggressive periodontitis, €267 ± €148 over 16.9 years. Regular SPT cost €806 per tooth per year over 28.7 years, with significant cost variations across studies. A 2013 study found that maintaining implants was five times costlier than maintaining teeth, particularly if peri-implantitis developed. A 2018 study indicated that implant-supported crowns (ISCs) were the most expensive therapy. Only one study directly compared costs within the same patient, finding periodontal treatment to be more cost-effective than implants. Costs also increased with irregular SPT, aggressive periodontitis, and specialist treatments compared to regular SPT, chronic periodontitis, and treatments by general dental practitioners. The quality of included studies scored between 45% and 84.6%, indicating moderate to high quality, with methodological issues including unclear strategies for handling confounding factors and incomplete follow-up. Implants are effective for replacing missing teeth but are associated with higher long-term costs and complications. Maintaining periodontally compromised teeth is generally more cost-effective, therefore, maintenance costs and potential complications should be carefully considered in treatment planning. There is a need for studies comparing the long-term cost-effectiveness of saving teeth compared to replacing them with implants, considering several variables for informed clinical decision-making.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Evidence-based dentistry
Evidence-based dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Evidence-Based Dentistry delivers the best available evidence on the latest developments in oral health. We evaluate the evidence and provide guidance concerning the value of the author''s conclusions. We keep dentistry up to date with new approaches, exploring a wide range of the latest developments through an accessible expert commentary. Original papers and relevant publications are condensed into digestible summaries, drawing attention to the current methods and findings. We are a central resource for the most cutting edge and relevant issues concerning the evidence-based approach in dentistry today. Evidence-Based Dentistry is published by Springer Nature on behalf of the British Dental Association.
期刊最新文献
Effectiveness of school-based oral health education interventions on oral health status and oral hygiene behaviors among schoolchildren: an umbrella review. Does adopting a healthy diet improve periodontal parameters in patients susceptible to periodontal disease? A systematic review. Effectiveness of 'video-based interventions' of toothbrushing over other interventions on improvement of oral hygiene in children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD): a systematic review and meta-analysis. How can we remove erroneous penicillin allergy labels? Auxillary aids for pain and anxiety reduction during dental local anesthesia in pediatric patients: a systematic review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1