Cost Effectiveness Analysis And Comparison Of Modern Root Canal Therapy And Implant Restoration

Objective In clinical, the methods of remaining the dispute teeth are root canal treatment and implant-supported restoration. Patients who are not equipped professional knowledge would set high expectations as a result of the high cost of root canal treatment or dental implant treatment compared to the living expenses, consequently having high demand for treatment plans. The current research of using economic evaluation in stomatological study is quite rare. In this paper, by using economic evaluation and building decision-tree analysis model, root canal treatment and implant-supported restoration were compared from the perspective of cost-effectiveness on the basis of the current best available evidence, for providing dentists and patients with statistical preference in clinical.Methods According to <The Statistical Yearbook of Shan Dong Province 2015>, <The Statistical Yearbook of China 2015>, field investigation and expert consultation, the indirect and direct costs of single-tooth implant and root canal treatment with post-core crown restoration on single anterior tooth were determined, plus the satisfaction of patients which were used to measure effectiveness of treatments. The survival rates of treatment plans above were extracted from meta-analysis of relative studies at home and abroad, as well as considering the discount rate and complication rate of PCET and implant. We built a Markov-Decision tree to estimate and calculate the cost-effectiveness of single anterior tooth over 50 cycles by TreeagePro2009. We used incremental cost-effectiveness ratios(ICER) to select the best strategy for patients.Results According to calculation of Software TreeagePro2009, the initial cost of PCET is significantly lower than that of implant. The initial cost of PCET is 2011.231.170+320.112yuan differentiate with 7320.112+820.230yuan of implant within 55%..However,the total cost of implant is 10030.451+811.220yuan differentiate with 3021.453+23.232yuan of PCET within approximately 55%. In 10-year period after prosthodontic treatment, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of PCET indicates it will be the dominant treatment to implant. In 50-year period after prosthodontic treatment, the incremental cost per QAPY of PCET is higher than implant. Thus,patients could take implant into consideration.Conclusion According to the lower initial cost and long-term survival rate similar to implant for PCET, it could be thought of the dominant treatment for patients to keep tooth.By the time passed, with the improvement of medical insurance system and life standard, implant could be better considered to keep tooth and screwing function.