Aim: The purpose of the present study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of various alternatives of non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment....
» More
Aim: The purpose of the present study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of various alternatives of non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment.
Materials and Methods: A decision analytical model was constructed and populated with parameter estimates from recent literature for reduction in pocket probing depth (PPD) in response to eight different treatment alternatives. A micro-costing approach combined with an online expert survey was applied to simulate a decision-making scenario taking place in Germany. The treatment alternatives providing the most advantageous cost/outcome combinations were identified according to the net benefit criterion. Uncertainties regarding model input parameters were incorporated via simple and probabilistic sensitivity analysis based on Monte Carlo simulation.
Results: In the base case scenario, debridement alone, Air-Flow®, debridement combined with PerioChip®, and debridement combined with local antibiotics were identified as treatment strategies with comparably better value for money than Er:YAG laser monotherapy, Vector™ System, debridement combined with CHX, and photodynamic therapy. Sensitivity analysis revealed considerable decision uncertainty corresponding to limited evidence about different treatment alternatives for peri-implantitis treatment.
Conclusions: Derivation of robust treatment recommendations for peri-implantitis requires more comprehensive and patient-centred evidence on peri-implantitis treatments.
