Wiegand, Annette E.

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","41"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of Dentistry"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","47"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","54"],["dc.contributor.author","Kanzow, Philipp"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiegand, Annette"],["dc.contributor.author","Schwendicke, Falk"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T10:06:35Z"],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-05-22T07:59:56Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T10:06:35Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-05-22T07:59:56Z"],["dc.date.issued","2016-08-26"],["dc.description.abstract","Objectives: Repairing instead of replacing partially defective composite or amalgam restorations might reduce the initial treatment risks and costs, but could be less advantageous long-term due to repeated re-interventions being required. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of repairing versus replacing composite or amalgam restorations.\r\nMethods: A mixed public-private-payer perspective from the German healthcare setting was adopted. A permanent molar with a three-surfaced partially defective composite or amalgam restoration in need of repair or replacement was modelled. Risks of complications after repair or complete replacement were derived by a rapid systematic literature review. The health outcome measure was tooth retention years. Costs were estimated from the German public and private fee catalogues. Monte-Carlo microsimulations were performed and incremental-cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used to express cost differences per gain or loss of effectiveness.\r\nResults: Compared with complete composite replacement, composite repairs were marginally more costly and more effective (€326 versus €321; 24.7 versus 24.0 years; ICER: €7.14). Amalgam repairs were more costly and more effective than complete replacement (€467 versus €326; 24.3 versus 23.7 years; ICER: €235). If composite repair costs were €<67 or complete replacement costs €>166, composite repair was always cost-effective. This was not the case for amalgam repair. The size of the restoration, the reason for repair/replacement, and patients' age were found to influence the cost-effectiveness.\r\nConclusions: Repair was found to be more effective, but not necessarily less costly than complete replacement of restorations.\r\nClinical significance: Repairing instead of replacing partially defective restorations is likely to retain teeth for longer compared with complete replacement. When considering cost-effectiveness, repairing composite can be recommended more strongly than repairing amalgam restorations."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.jdent.2016.08.008"],["dc.identifier.isi","000386677200005"],["dc.identifier.pmid","27575986"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/65704"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/39122"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.relation.eissn","0300-5712"],["dc.relation.issn","1879-176X"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Poliklinik für Präventive Zahnmedizin, Parodontologie und Kariologie"],["dc.subject.gro","Decision-making"],["dc.subject.gro","Economic evaluation"],["dc.subject.gro","Mathematical modelling"],["dc.subject.gro","Minimally invasive dentistry"],["dc.subject.gro","Restoration repair"],["dc.subject.gro","Restorative dentistry"],["dc.title","Cost-effectiveness of repairing versus replacing composite or amalgam restorations"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of Dentistry"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","16"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","86"],["dc.contributor.author","Kanzow, Philipp"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiegand, Annette"],["dc.contributor.author","Schwendicke, Falk"],["dc.contributor.author","Göstemeyer, Gerd"],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-05-22T07:01:08Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-05-22T07:01:08Z"],["dc.date.issued","2019-05-17"],["dc.description.abstract","Objectives: While repairs are increasingly recommended to manage partially defective restorations, performing the repair (including bonding to different substrates) can be challenging, and dentists should adhere to established repair protocols. We aimed to systematically assess the consistency and quality of repair protocols.\r\nData: 808 records were initially identified and 71 repair protocols based on 84 sources included. The number of published sources over time increased exponentially (p < 0.001). Recommended treatment steps varied widely. Some treatment steps were only recommended by a minority of protocols, while others were consistently recommended (e.g. surface roughening, hydrofluoric acid etching of silicate ceramics, application of an adhesive/bonding agent). The overall quality of included sources was moderate (mean ± SD 3.7 ± 0.9 out of 7 points).\r\nSources: Electronic databases (Medline via PubMed, Embase) were searched, hand searches using Google and Google Scholar conducted, and the reference lists of included full texts screened and cross-referenced.\r\nStudy selection: (Non-)systematic reviews, working instructions, and textbooks with protocols on direct composite repair restorations for partially defective (1) composite, (2) amalgam, (3) porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFMs) with exposed metal base, (4) ceramic/PFMs without exposed metal base, and (5) full metal restorations were included. Data synthesis was performed by tabulation of recommended treatment steps and descriptive statistics. The quality of included sources was assessed based on a checklist for guideline appraisal (MiChe).\r\nConclusions: The main treatment steps were consistently reported across repair protocols.\r\nClinical significance: Dentists may want to adopt widely recommended treatment steps when performing repairs of different restoration materials in their daily practice."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.jdent.2019.05.021"],["dc.identifier.pmid","31108118"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/65677"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.relation.eissn","1879-176X"],["dc.relation.issn","0300-5712"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Poliklinik für Präventive Zahnmedizin, Parodontologie und Kariologie"],["dc.subject.gro","Decision-making"],["dc.subject.gro","Evidence-based practice"],["dc.subject.gro","Minimally invasive dentistry"],["dc.subject.gro","Restoration repair"],["dc.subject.gro","Systematic review"],["dc.title","Same, same, but different? A systematic review of protocols for restoration repair"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]