Send to

Choose Destination
J Dent Res. 2013 Dec;92(12 Suppl):183S-8S. doi: 10.1177/0022034513504927. Epub 2013 Oct 24.

Cost-effectiveness of anterior implants versus fixed dental prostheses.

Author information

Department of Periodontology, Endodontology, and Cariology, University of Basel, Hebelstrasse 3, CH-4056, Basel, Switzerland.


For the restoration of an anterior missing tooth, implant-supported single crowns (ISCs) or fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) are indicated, but it is not clear which type of restoration is more cost-effective. A self-selected trial was performed with 15 patients with ISCs and 11 with FDPs. Patient preferences were recorded with visual analog scales before treatment, 1 month following restoration, and then annually. Quality-adjusted tooth years (QATYs) were estimated by considering the type of reconstruction for replacing the missing tooth and its effect on the adjacent teeth. A stochastic cost-effectiveness model was developed using Monte Carlo simulation. The expected costs and QATYs were summarized in cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. ISC was the dominant strategy, with a QATY increase of 0.01 over 3 years and 0.04 over 10 years with a higher probability of being cost-effective. While both treatment options provided satisfactory long-term results from the patient's perspective, the lower initial costs, particularly laboratory fees, were responsible for the dominance of ISCs over FDPs.


cost effectiveness; dental economics; dental restoration; fixed partial denture; patient satisfaction; single-tooth implants

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Atypon Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center