TABLE 3.
Characteristics of the included studies
| Functional evaluation of OH‐QoL and rehabilitation with dental implants | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ref. number | Authors | Study design | Population | Objective/primary outcome | Assessment tool/ procedure | Results |
| 40 | Farzadmoghadam et al (2020) | Retrospective study | 102 patients rehabilitated with various implant‐supported reconstructions | Relationship between OH‐QoL and general health‐related quality of life |
Subjective assessment: visual analog scale, EuroQol‐5D, and the OHIP‐14 questionnaire |
Results indicated an increase in general and oral health‐related quality of life after implant treatment. There was a positive weak relationship between OH‐QoL and general health‐related quality of life |
| 41 | Yeung et al (2020) | Non‐randomized controlled trial |
104 patients from a private practice were assigned to 3 treatment protocols:
|
Comparison of 3 prosthetic implant protocols |
Subjective assessment: Oral Impacts on Daily Performances and Oral Satisfaction scale |
OH‐QoL improved more when the implants were loaded immediately than when the prosthetic rehabilitation was delayed |
| 43 | Fonteyne et al (2021) | Prospective study | 21 fully edentulous patients received implant‐supported overdentures (2 implants connected with a bar) | Assessment of articulation and its alteration, oro‐myofunctional behavior during 3 stages: pretreatment, during provisional, and after final reconstruction |
Assessment: by speech therapists, OH‐QoL, visual analog scale |
OH‐QoL increased over treatment process. No impact on speech or oro‐myofunction was found after treatment |
| 44 | Dellepiane et al (2020) | Prospective study | 25 patients with compromised dentitions were rehabilitated with implant‐supported full arch immediate loading rehabilitation | Assessment of OH‐QoL before, during, and after completion of treatment | OH‐QoL using 4 questionnaires specifically designed for this study to investigate pain, comfort, oral hygiene habits, esthetics, masticatory ability, phonetics, and general satisfaction |
96% of the patients did not show esthetic concerns after 4 mo of rehabilitation 92% of the patients did have difficulty eating after 4 mo of rehabilitation OH‐QoL was significantly improved after treatment |
| 45 | Zhang et al (2019) | 5‐y prospective study | 103 geriatric patients with a history of deficient complete dentures | OH‐QoL of patients treated with mandibular two‐implant retained overdentures |
Subjective assessment: Own questionnaire (40 items, 4 point rating scale: “not at all” ‐ “extremely”) Objective assessment: Woelfel's index |
The support of a full dental prosthesis supplemented by 2 implants improves the retention and stability of the prosthesis significantly Implant‐supported mandibular dentures yielded the best results, as was reflected in reduced functional complaints, complaint frequency and intensity of complaints. Overall patient satisfaction correlated negatively with technical complications |
| 46 | Doornewaard et al (2019) | 3‐y prospective study, split mouth |
Report of two studies. First study: 26 patients received 2 implants Second study: 23 patients received 2 implants |
Impact of supported mandibular overdenture on OH‐QoL |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐14 questionnaire |
Implant‐supported mandibular overdenture significantly improves the OH‐QoL |
| 47 | Yao et al (2018) |
Systematic review |
‐ | Comparing OH‐QoL outcome measures of implant‐supported fixed complete dentures and overdentures |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐14 questionnaire, OHIP‐49 questionnaire, visual analog scale, Likert scale |
Fixed and removable implant retained prostheses were rated similarly Only cleansability was rated differently Inconsistent results indicate that the question whether to restore an edentulous patient with either fixed or removable implant prostheses cannot be solely answered by assessing patient‐reported outcomes |
| 48 | Coutinho (2021) | 5‐y prospective study | 30 patients | Impact on OH‐QoL of patients rehabilitated with single‐implant mandibular overdentures |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐Edent |
Peri‐implant soft tissue conditions did not change significantly over 5 y. Statistically significant improvement in OH‐QoL was assessed after 5 y compared with baseline Comfort, stability, and ability to masticate was significant increased for single‐implant mandibular overdentures and all evaluation periods |
| 49 | Kutkut et al (2018) | Systematic review | ‐ | Comparing OH‐QoL outcome measures of conventional complete dentures with unsplinted implant‐retained overdentures |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐ questionnaire Visual analog scale Objective assessment: masticatory performance test |
Implant‐retained overdentures were associated with significantly better patients' masticatory performance and oral health‐related quality of life. Significantly higher ratings of overall satisfaction, comfort, stability, ability to speak, and ability to chew were associated with patients rehabilitated with mandibular unsplinted implant‐retained overdentures than conventional complete dentures |
| 50 | Sivaramakrishnan et al (2017) | Systematic review | ‐ | Comparing patient satisfaction with mini‐implant vs standard diameter implant overdentures |
Meta‐analysis of subjective assessment: Oral health‐related quality of life Visual analog scale OHIP‐14 |
Mini‐implant‐supported compared with standard diameter implant‐supported overdentures indicated significantly better patient satisfaction levels |
| 51 | Sivaramakrishnan et al (2016) | Systematic review | ‐ | Comparing OH‐QoL outcome measures of implant‐supported mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures |
Meta‐analysis of subjective assessment: OHIP‐ questionnaire |
Except for physical pain statistically significant better patient satisfaction levels were found for patients treated with implants |
| 52 | Allen et al (2006) | Randomized clinical trial (3 mo) |
1st group: 62 patients receiving implants 2nd group: 56 patients receiving conventional denture |
Comparing OH‐QoL outcome measures of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and conventional complete dentures |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐ questionnaire Objective assessment Validate denture satisfaction scale |
Patients receiving implants showed significantly higher OHIP score changes than patients refusing implant treatments |
| 53 | Allen et al (2001) | Prospective study |
1st group: 20 patients; edentulous for a mean time of 23.1 y and had worn a mean of 6.7 sets of complete denture prostheses 2nd group: 20 patients; edentulous for a mean time of 19.9 y and had worn a mean number of 4.9 sets of complete denture prostheses 3rd group: 35 patients; edentulous for a mean time of 27.1 y and had received a mean number of 3.4 sets of complete dentures |
Comparing OH‐QoL outcome measures of implant‐supported overdentures and conventional dentures |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐ questionnaire and validate denture satisfaction and expectation scale (Likert response format: 1‐5 = “totally satisfied” to “not at all satisfied”) |
Patients’ satisfaction improved even in the group of patients who preferred implant‐stabilized prostheses but instead were treated with conventional prostheses. But the extent of patients’ satisfaction was higher with patients who received their desired treatment. Therefore patient expectations did not indicate them to be a good predictor of treatment outcome |
| 54 | Heydecke et al (2005) | Randomized clinical trial |
102 patients, aged 35‐65 y, had been edentulous for at least 10 y
|
Assessing the impact of conventional and implant‐supported prostheses on social and sexual activities in edentulous adults |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐ questionnaire and Social Impact Questionnaire |
Eating, speaking, kissing, and yawning were significantly improved in the group receiving implant‐supported prostheses Nevertheless there were only weak correlations found between the two sexual activity items (uneasiness when kissing and during sexual relations) and the OHIP scores |
| 55 | Zembic et al (2014) | Prospective clinical study |
21 patients being edentulous in the maxilla and encountering problems with their existing dentures were included 12 received a new set of conventional dentures; as a consequence of insufficient denture stability (9: 2 women and 7 men), the existing dentures were adjusted by means of relining or rebasing All patients received implant‐supported dentures on two retentive anchors |
Comparing OH‐QoL outcome measures of implant‐retained maxillary overdentures and conventional dentures |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐ questionnaire and visual analog scale |
Patient satisfaction significantly increased for implant‐supported dentures compared with old dentures in all seven OHIP subgroups, as well as for cleaning ability, general satisfaction, ability to speak, comfort, esthetics, and stability |
| 56 | Schuster et al (2020) | Prospective longitudinal clinical study | 20 patients rehabilitated with implant‐retained mandibular overdenture after 2 and 3 y |
To investigate evolution of masticatory function, OH‐QoL, and prosthetic occurrences of implant‐retained mandibular overdenture wearers according to mandibular bone atrophy over 3 y of usage |
Subjective assessment: DIDL questionnaire and OHIP‐14 questionnaire |
Masticatory function and OH‐QoL are not related to mandibular bone atrophy until 3 y after implant‐retained mandibular overdenture rehabilitation The DIDL questionnaire showed no significant difference for almost all domains, except for the general performance domain, where a moderate effect was found for the third y |
| 57 | Fonteyne et al. (2021) | 3‐y prospective study | 21 patients receiving implant‐supported overdentures | Impact of four implant‐supported overdenture in the maxilla on OH‐QoL and speech of patients |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐14 questionnaire and visual analog scale |
Number of articulation disorders decreased but was not statistically significant Overall satisfaction improved after insertion of connection of implant bar All seven domains improved in OH‐QoL for implant‐supported overdentures compared with conventional dentures |
| 58 | Garcia‐Minguillan (2021) | Cross‐sectional study |
Test group: 85 endentulous patients 42: conventional denture 43: implant‐retained overdenture Control group: 50 patients with healthy natural dentition |
Comparing OH‐QoL of patients with fully dentate subjects and edentulous patients |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐14, OHIP‐20, and Quality of Life with Implant‐Prostheses‐10 questionnaire |
Patients with natural dentitions were most critical Patients with implant overdentures showed better OH‐QoL than patients with conventional dentures |
| 59 | Kusumoto et al (2020) | Prospective study | 72 patients rehabilitated with implant fixed complete dentures or implant overdentures | Association between implant fixed complete dentures and implant overdentures on OH‐QoL |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐49 questionnaire |
Except for the perception of masticatory function, both implant‐fixed complete dentures and implant overdentures indicated comparable OH‐QoL |
| 60 | Matthys et al (2019) | Comparative clinical cohort |
34 patients rehabilitated with balls 56 patients rehabilitated with locators |
To assess 5 y of clinical implant outcome, prosthetic maintenance, cost, and OH‐QoL of two cohorts receiving 2 implant over dentures on ball or stud abutments |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐14 questionnaire |
Balls and locators yield stable 5‐y implant outcome and improved OH‐QoL. OHIP‐14 declined from 18.1 to 2.7 for both attachment modalities Locators required more maintenance and resulted in a lower retention. Maintenance costs are minimal but may affect OH‐QoL |
| 61 | Brandt (2021) | Retrospective study | 122 patients | Comparing OH‐QoL of patients receiving ball vs Locator attachments for implant‐retained overdentures |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐14 |
Patients receiving Locator attachments indicated significant better OH‐QoL compared with patients receiving balls attachment |
| 62 | Negoro (2021) | Prospective study | 30 patients with Kennedy class I or II and distal extension defects of 3 or more teeth | Comparing OH‐QoL of patients with conventional removable partial dentures, (short) implant‐assisted removable partial dentures, and with or without magnetic attachments |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐49 |
The OH‐QoL was significantly increased for patients receiving implant‐assisted removable partial dentures with magnetic attachments compared with rehabilitation without magnetic attachments |
| 63 | Zhou | Up to 5‐y retrospective study |
48 patients treated with implant‐retained mandibular overdentures Group A: 26 patients treated with bar attachments Group B: 22 patients treated with magnetic attachments |
Comparing OH‐QoL of patients receiving ball vs magnetic attachments for implant‐retained mandibular overdentures |
Subjective assessment: visual analog scale |
Peri‐implant probing depth and plaque index were significantly better for the magnetic attachment group compared with the bar attachment group OH‐QoL was not statistically significantly different between both groups Nevertheless, patients treated with bars had significantly more difficulties to clean their reconstructions than patients treated with magnetic attachments |
| 64 | Gündoğar (2021) | Cross‐sectional study | 109 geriatric patients | Impact of peri‐implant disease on OH‐QoL in a geriatric population |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐14 |
Prevalence of peri‐implantitis was 30%. Prevalence of peri‐implant mucositis was 24% Statistical analysis failed to reveal any significance between patients with peri‐implantitis or peri‐implant mucositis. Plaque index and gingival index were statistically significantly correlated with total OHIP‐14 score |
| 65 | Thomason et al (2007) |
Systematic review |
‐ | How do reconstructions affect patient‐reported outcomes of conventional dentures vs implant‐supported overdentures | QoL, OH‐QoL, patient satisfaction (with a range of parameters) | The overall rating for OH‐QoL of patients receiving implant‐supported overdentures was not significantly better than for conventional dentures |
| 66 | Tsakos et al (2006) | National Diet and Nutrition Survey |
Sample of the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (people aged ± 65 y) 407 dentate and 346 edentate participants |
OH‐QoL of life correlations in a national geriatric sample |
Subjective assessment: OIDP ‐ questionnaire |
Patients with > 8 occluding pairs of teeth were 2.66 times, and those with up to 2 anterior occluding pairs, were 3.00 times less likely to report oral impacts Edentate participants with inadequate denture adaptation and subjects with inadequate denture retention were more likely to report oral impacts than the remaining edentate patients In each case OH‐QoL is significantly related to the number of occluding pairs of natural teeth among the dentate and denture quality among the edentate |
| 67 | Steele et al (2004) | National sample |
UK, 1998: Adult Dental Health Survey Australia, 1999: National Dental Telephone Interview Survey |
Impact of tooth loss on OH‐QoL | Subjective assessment: OHIP‐14 |
Patients with average number of teeth showed significantly better scores than all other groups with less teeth Important variables influencing OH‐QoL are age, number of teeth, and cultural background Australian‐ and British‐born groups showed better overall scores compared with first‐generation immigrants from elsewhere |
| 68 | Wong et al (2005) | Retrospective study | 233 patients; 60‐80 y old | Impact of tooth loss on emotion/OH‐QoL for edentulous and partially dentate patients | Subjective assessment: General Oral Health Assessment Index |
22% of patients had difficulty in accepting tooth loss Edentulous patients were significantly more satisfied with their prostheses compared with partially dentate patients |
| 69 | Kurosaki et al (2020) | Retrospective study | 105 partially edentulous patients received 1 out of 3 prosthetic treatments and were followed 6 y | Long‐term performance of 3 prostheses: implant‐supported fixed denture, FPD, and removable partial denture in terms of survival and OH‐QoL |
Subjective assessment: Oral Health‐related Quality of Life, psychological health‐related quality of life, a previously validated questionnaire, which was developed based on the OHIP |
Implant‐supported fixed denture, FPD, and removable partial did not yield statistical significantly differences in terms of OH‐QoL |
| 70 | Dong et al (2019) | Prospective study | 373 patients | OH‐QoL outcome measures of patients rehabilitated with single implants |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐14, Oral implant profile questionnaire, visual analog scales, open‐ended question: “What was the most concerning aspect that affected your satisfaction in the implant treatment?” |
Patients treated with bone augmentation and those with a longer period of tooth loss are significantly less satisfied Patients are most concerned about survival time success rate and survival time of implants |
| 71 | AlZarea et al (2017) | Prospective study | 79 partially edentulous patients | OH‐QoL of partially edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant‐supported single crowns or FPDs (pre‐and post‐treatment) |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐49 (pre‐and post‐treatment) |
From baseline to 1st y of observation a significant increase of patients’ OH‐QoL in terms of functional limitation, physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, and social disability but not handicap was found From baseline to 2nd and 3rd y all variables also significantly indicated an increase of OH‐QoL There were no significant differences between gender |
| 72 | Gerritsen et al (2010) | Systematic review | ‐ | Impact of tooth loss on OH‐QoL |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐49, OHIP‐14, GOHAI, OIDP, ad hoc satisfaction questionnaires |
The results indicated that not only number of tooth loss, but location and distribution of missing teeth, affect the reduction of OH‐QoL. Furthermore, the extent and severity of impairment seems to be context‐dependent (eg, cultural background) |
| 73 | AlZarea et al (2016) | Retrospective study | 92 patients | OH‐QoL of patients rehabilitated with dental implants |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐14 |
Results from the OHIP‐14 questionnaire revealed that patients with dental implants were satisfied with their OH‐QoL |
| 74 | Sargozaie et al (2017) | Cross‐sectional study | 73 patients | OH‐QoL of patients rehabilitated with dental implants (pre‐and post‐treatment) |
Subjective assessment: OIDP |
Before surgery, the most common problems reported were eating, smiling, laughing, and embarrassment. After surgery, eating, speaking clearly, clean teeth or dentures, light physical activities, smiling, laughing, showing teeth without discomfort and embarrassment, emotional conditions, enjoying communication with others, and job‐related activities significantly increased OH‐QoL But after surgery the amount of sleep and resting did not improve. After implantation, the place of residence, education, and gender did not show a significant association with OH‐QoL |
| 75 | Reissmann et al (2017) | Systematic review | At least 50 patients | OH‐QoL of patients rehabilitated with implant‐supported prosthesis |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐ questionnaire, Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index, UK oral health‐related quality of life measure, and DIDL |
For partially dentate patients, implant‐supported FDPs did not show superiority over conventional fixed dental prostheses Implant‐supported FDPs indicated moderate superiority over conventional removable dental prostheses For edentulous patients that are, at baseline, highly impaired and requested implant treatment, improvements of OH‐QoL was superior for implant‐supported dentures compared to conventional dentures |
| 76 | Cadel‐Marti et al (2015) | Retrospective study | 57 patients with severely atrophic maxillae | Comparing OH‐QoL of patients treated with partial positioned implants vs conventional implants supporting fixed full‐arch prostheses |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐14 questionnaire and visual analog scale |
Patients treated with partial positioned implants (more coverage of palate) vs conventional implants supporting fixed full‐arch prostheses did not show reduction of OH‐QoL |
| 77 | Torres et al (2011) | Prospective study |
50 patients with implant‐supported mandibular overdentures 50 patients with conventional mandibular dentures |
Impact of personality traits on OH‐QoL of patients treated with conventional mandibular dentures and implant‐supported overdentures |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐14 questionnaire and Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Five‐Factors Inventory (five personality domains) |
Patients with conventional mandibular dentures reported higher levels of impact on OH‐QoL compared with patients with implant‐supported mandibular overdentures OH‐QoL is significant associated with personality traits (mainly neuroticism) related to implant‐supported or conventional removable complete dentures |
| Esthetic assessment of OH‐QoL in conjunction with oral rehabilitation with dental implants | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ref. number | Authors | Study design | Population/ examiner | Objective | Assessment Tool/ Procedure | Results |
| 78 | Yu et al (2013) | 6‐month prospective study | 238 patients | Impact of missing anterior teeth rehabilitated with implants on OH‐QoL |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐14 |
After crown restoration, OH‐QoL of patients increased statistically significantly compared with the situation before implantation |
| 79 | Wang et al (2021) | Cross‐sectional survey | 95 patients receiving fixed implant‐supported restorations | Assessment of patients’ satisfaction regarding function (phonetics, chewing comfort, stability, cleansability) and esthetics in a peridontal practice 10 y after implant placement |
Subjective assessment: visual analog scale, OHIP, and Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire |
Mean visual analog scale score, mean OHIP, and mean Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire scores were 93%, 11.3, and 20.5, respectively. Therefore patients showed high satisfaction with their restorations |
| 82 | Vaidya et al (2015) | Evaluation of photographs |
Evaluation of 20 intra‐oral photographs: 14 examiners (2 orthodontists, 2 prosthodontists, 2 oral surgeons, 2 periodontists, 2 dental technicians, 2 dental assistants, and 2 postgraduate students in Implant Dentistry) |
Impact of clinicians with diverse dental backgrounds on the evaluation of maxillary implant‐supported single‐tooth replacements |
Objective assessment: Pink Esthetic Score/White Esthetic Score and the modified Implant Crown Esthetic Index |
Pink Esthetic Score/White Esthetic Score and the modified Implant Crown Esthetic Index showed reliable estimates of esthetic outcomes The degree of specialization of the clinician affect the esthetic evaluation for both indices: Pink Esthetic Score/White Esthetic Score and the modified Implant Crown Esthetic Index. Prosthodontics were most critical. DAs and periodontists provided favorable ratings compared with other specialties |
| 83 | Chang et al (1999) | Evaluation of photographs |
Intra‐oral and extraoral photographs were taken from 29 patients with 41 single implant‐supported crowns in the maxillary anterior region and were included 5 prosthodontists evaluated the photographs |
Are prosthodontics’ and patients’ evaluations of esthetic outcomes of implant‐supported single‐tooth replacements different? |
Subjective assessment: visual analog scale |
Subjective assessment was found to be higher for all variables compared with the clinician’s evaluation Factors considered important from the clinician’s view may not be decisively important for patients’ satisfaction |
| 84 | Esposito et al (2009) | Evaluation of photographs |
30 patients evaluated their own results 10 clinicians evaluated all 30 patients’ results |
Are prosthodontics’ and patients’ evaluations of esthetic outcomes of implant‐supported single‐tooth replacements different? |
Subjective assessment: visual analog scale Evaluation of intra‐oral and extraoral photographs |
Clinicians’ responses were less in agreement than patients’ responses Agreement between patients’ and clinicians’ responses was poor |
| 85 | Wittneben et al (2018) | Systematic review | 816 implant‐supported reconstructions were analyzed by patients | Patient‐reported outcome with focus on esthetics |
Subjective assessment: visual analog scale |
Visual analog scale evaluation (rated by patients) for esthetic outcome of fixed dental prostheses was high For the implant‐supported FDPs and the surrounding mucosa, the visual analog scale evaluation from patients was also high No effect on patients’ satisfaction of the definitive implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses with the following parameters: individual restorative materials, implant neck design (ie, tissue or bone level type implants), and the use of a fixed provisional |
| 87 | Hosseini et al (2013) | 3‐y prospective study | Supported, single tooth restorations |
Comparing patient‐reported outcome of all‐ceramic vs metal‐ceramic crowns of implant reconstructions. |
Subjective assessment: OHIP‐49 Objective assessment: Copenhagen Index Score 67 |
The 3‐y survival rate for implants was 100% and for abutments was 97% Significantly more marginal bone loss was found for gold‐alloy abutments compared with zirconia abutments The most frequent technical complication was loss of retention, which was only found in metal‐ceramic crowns All‐ceramic restorations showed more frequently biologic complications than metal‐ceramic crowns. Marginal adaptations of all‐ceramic crowns were significantly less optimal than metal‐ceramic crowns. Significant better color match for all‐ceramic compared with metal‐ceramic restorations was reported from professionals. No significant discrepancies in patients’ satisfaction for esthetic outcome was found for patients rehabilitated with all‐ceramic vs metal‐ceramic restorations |
| Cost‐related evaluation of OH‐QoL and rehabilitation with dental implants | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ref number | Author | Study design | Population | Objective | Assessment tool/Procedure | Results |
| 93 | MacEntee et al (1998) | Framework for analysis and preliminary outcomes | ‐ | Economic aspects of complete dentures and implant‐related reconstruction | Analysis of measurement, distribution, impact, and management: four foundations for the framework | There are physiologic and psychosocial costs and benefits to both the conventional denture and the implant prosthesis, which indicates that neither method is distinctly superior. The physiologic costs are low and the psychosocial costs are similar for both treatments, whereas the direct financial costs associated with the implant prosthesis are substantially higher |
| 94 | Bragger et al (2005) | Retrospective study |
37 received 41 conventional three‐unit FPDs 52 patients received 59 single crowns on implants (I) |
Economic aspects of single‐tooth replacement | Comparison of the two treatments in terms of treatment time, number of visits, monetary and opportunity costs, and comparison | Treatment time was similar, I. required more visits. Total costs were lower for I. Costs for treatment of complications were similar for both groups. Overall, for a short period of time, implant reconstruction showed a more favorable cost/effectiveness ratio |
| 96 | Hettiarachchi et al (2018) | Systematic review | ‐ | The cost‐effectiveness of oral health interventions: a systematic review of cost‐utility analyses | Assessment of cost‐utility analysis in oral health interventions |
From 2011 to 2016, the cost‐utility analysis of oral health interventions increased Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards were used to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness |
| 97 | Jensen et al (2017) | Prospective study |
30 patients with full upper dentures and complaints regarding their bilateral mandibular free‐ending removable partial dentures were included All patients received 4 implants in the premolar region and new removable partial dentures |
Cost‐effectiveness of implant‐supported mandibular removable partial dentures |
Cost‐effectiveness analysis comparing conventional removable partial dentures with implant‐supported removable partial dentures in patients with edentulous maxilla Treatment effect was expressed by the Dutch Oral Health Impact Profile Questionnaire OHIP‐NL49 |
Depending on the choice of outcome measure and monetary threshold, supporting a removable partial denture with implants is cost‐effective when payers are willing to pay > 80 Euros per OHIP point gained |
| 98 | Palmqvist et al (2004) | Prospective randomized clinical study |
11 patients received fixed prosthesis on 3 implants 6 patients received overdentures on 3 implants and a Dolder bar |
Comparing prosthodontic production time and costs in implant‐supported fixed prostheses vs overdentures in the edentulous mandible | Assessment of laboratory and clinical working hours along with cost evaluation | Mean clinical working hours were 3.1 in the fixed prosthesis group and 4.1 in the overdenture group. Mean laboratory working h were 12.5 in the fixed prosthesis group and 7.7 in the overdenture group. Total laboratory costs were on average about 1700 US dollars for the fixed prosthesis and 1350 US dollars for the overdenture |
| 99 | Ravida et al (2018) | Retrospective study |
45 patients test group: 149 implants control group: 111 implants minimum follow‐up: 5 y mean follow‐up: 9.6 y |
Clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of computer‐guided vs conventional implant‐retained hybrid prostheses | Analysis of patient‐focused costs in terms of necessary costs of diagnostic, therapeutic, and follow‐up procedures |
Biologic and technical complications did not show significant differences between groups Incidence of implant loss was less observed in test group The initial cost for the guided implant placement group was significantly higher For the prosthetic complication and total cost, no significant difference was detected between both groups |
| 100 | Ravida et al (2013) | Retrospective study |
145 patients: 40 nonsplinted crowns 52 splinted crowns 53 implant‐supported bridge 382 bone‐level implants: 120 nonsplinted crowns 106 implant‐supported bridge 156 splinted crowns mean follow‐up: 76.2 mo |
Comparing the cost‐effectiveness of three different types of implant‐supported FDPs: rehabiliation of 3‐unit edentulous area | Cost‐effectiveness analysis comparing nonsplinted crown, splinted crowns, implant‐supported bridge |
Implant survival rates were 92.5% for nonsplinted crowns, 100% for implant‐supported bridges, and 88.5% for splinted crowns Implant survival rates were significantly different between the implant‐supported bridge and splinted crowns groups Nonsplinted crowns and splinted crowns showed higher total costs compared with the implant‐supported bridge group A 3‐unit implant‐supported bridge on 2 implants showed better results in the long term compared with nonsplinted crowns and splinted crown solutions on implants |
Abbreviations: DAs, Dental Assistants; DIDL, dental impact on daily living; FPDs, fixed partial dentures; GOHAI, Geriatric oral health assessment index; OHIP, oral health impact profile; OH‐QoL, oral health‐related quality of life; OIDP, oral impacts on daily performances.