Options
Cost-effectiveness of repairing versus replacing composite or amalgam restorations
ISSN
1879-176X
Date Issued
2016-08-26
Author(s)
DOI
10.1016/j.jdent.2016.08.008
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.
Methods: 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.
Results: 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.
Conclusions: Repair was found to be more effective, but not necessarily less costly than complete replacement of restorations.
Clinical 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.
Methods: 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.
Results: 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.
Conclusions: Repair was found to be more effective, but not necessarily less costly than complete replacement of restorations.
Clinical 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.
