ArticleBMC oral health2021
Cost-utility analysis of an implant treatment in dentistry.
Article in BMC oral health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Discounting Practices in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Dentistry: A Systematic Review of Studies Published After 2020.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2026Review
- Evaluating stress distribution and clinical success in varied dental implant designs.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Preliminary cost analysis of prosthodontic rehabilitation in partial and complete edentulism: evidence from a private clinical setting in Greece.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- A Comparison of Deep Learning vs. Dental Implantologists in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography-Based Bone Quality Classification.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis in dental medicine: a systematic review with a focus on affordability and risk-aversion.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhen dealing with the replacement of one missing tooth, the patient has the option of choosing between different types of treatment interventions. Several important factors play a role in his decision-making process, including his limited financial means and his efforts to solve the problem of missing teeth as effectively as possible. The main goal of the study is the economic-clinical evaluation of implant treatment, as a surgical-prosthetic method in dentistry, in case of replacement of one missing tooth of the molar area.
methodsCost-utility analysis from the patient's perspective is used for evaluation. The selected comparator is a purely prosthetic solution with the help of a three-unit fixed dental prosthesis. Cost-utility analysis is modelled using Markov models, which consider a 30-year time horizon.
resultsBased on the results of modelling, the intervention evaluated by the patient, i.e. treatment with the help of implant-supported single crown, brings exactly 15.31 quality-adjusted prosthesis years (QAPY) after 30 years. The value of incremental cost-utility ratio amounted to USD - 1434.
conclusionThe results of the cost-utility analysis suggest that implant treatment with an implant-supported single crown is more cost-effective than treatment with the three-unit fixed dental prosthesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.