Cost-effectiveness of silicone and alginate impressions for complete dentures

C. Hulme; G. Yu; C. Browne; J. O'Dwyer; H. Craddock; S. Brown; J. Gray; S. Pavitt; C. Fernandez; M. Godfrey; G. Dukanovic; P. Brunton; T. P. Hyde

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2014.03.001

Cost-effectiveness of silicone and alginate impressions for complete dentures

C. Hulme, G. Yu, C. Browne, J. O'Dwyer, H. Craddock, S. Brown, J. Gray, S. Pavitt, C. Fernandez, M. Godfrey, G. Dukanovic, P. Brunton, T. P. Hyde^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Dental Education

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

20 Citations (Scopus)

9 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of silicone and alginate impressions for complete dentures.

Methods: Cost effectiveness analyses were undertaken alongside a UK single centre, double blind, controlled, crossover clinical trial. Taking the perspective of the healthcare sector, effectiveness is measured using the EuroQol (EQ-5D-3L) which provides a single index value for health status that may be combined with time to produce quality adjusted life years (QALYs); and Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-EDENT). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios are presented representing the additional cost per one unit gained.

Results: Mean cost was higher in the silicone impression group (388.57 pound vs. 363.18) pound. Negligible between-group differences were observed in QALY gains; the silicone group had greater mean OHIP-EDENT gains. The additional cost using silicone was 3.41 pound per change of one point in the OHIP-EDENT.

Conclusions: The silicone group was more costly, driven by the cost of materials. Changes in the EQ-5D and QALY gains over time and between arms were not statistically significant. Change in OHIP-EDENT score showed greater improvement in the silicone group and the difference between arms was statistically significant. Given negligible QALY gains and low level of resource use, results must be treated with caution. It is difficult to make robust claims about the comparative cost-effectiveness.

Clinical significance: Silicone impressions for complete dentures improve patients' quality of life (OHIP-EDENT score). The extra cost of silicone impressions is 30 pound per patient. Dentists, patients and health care funders need to consider the clinical and financial value of silicone impressions. Different patients, different dentists, different health funders will have individual perceptions and judgements. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	902-907
Number of pages	6
Journal	Journal of Dentistry
Volume	42
Issue number	8
Early online date	1 Jul 2014
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.03.001
Publication status	Published - Aug 2014

Bibliographical note

Open Access funded by Department of Health UK
Under a Creative Commons license

This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-0408-16300). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health (UK).

Keywords

prosthodontics
quality-of life
impression materials
cost effectiveness
cost
resource
quality-of-life
important difference
health
impact
disease

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jdent.2014.03.001

Cost-effectiveness of silicone and alginate impressions for complete dentures
2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-SA license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/).
Final published version, 324 KB

Cite this

@article{99882fe0ca19455a9b0eee8aedcfde27,

title = "Cost-effectiveness of silicone and alginate impressions for complete dentures",

abstract = "Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of silicone and alginate impressions for complete dentures.Methods: Cost effectiveness analyses were undertaken alongside a UK single centre, double blind, controlled, crossover clinical trial. Taking the perspective of the healthcare sector, effectiveness is measured using the EuroQol (EQ-5D-3L) which provides a single index value for health status that may be combined with time to produce quality adjusted life years (QALYs); and Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-EDENT). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios are presented representing the additional cost per one unit gained.Results: Mean cost was higher in the silicone impression group (388.57 pound vs. 363.18) pound. Negligible between-group differences were observed in QALY gains; the silicone group had greater mean OHIP-EDENT gains. The additional cost using silicone was 3.41 pound per change of one point in the OHIP-EDENT.Conclusions: The silicone group was more costly, driven by the cost of materials. Changes in the EQ-5D and QALY gains over time and between arms were not statistically significant. Change in OHIP-EDENT score showed greater improvement in the silicone group and the difference between arms was statistically significant. Given negligible QALY gains and low level of resource use, results must be treated with caution. It is difficult to make robust claims about the comparative cost-effectiveness.Clinical significance: Silicone impressions for complete dentures improve patients' quality of life (OHIP-EDENT score). The extra cost of silicone impressions is 30 pound per patient. Dentists, patients and health care funders need to consider the clinical and financial value of silicone impressions. Different patients, different dentists, different health funders will have individual perceptions and judgements. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.",

keywords = "prosthodontics, quality-of life, impression materials, cost effectiveness, cost, resource, quality-of-life, important difference, health, impact, disease",

author = "C. Hulme and G. Yu and C. Browne and J. O'Dwyer and H. Craddock and S. Brown and J. Gray and S. Pavitt and C. Fernandez and M. Godfrey and G. Dukanovic and P. Brunton and Hyde, {T. P.}",

note = "Open Access funded by Department of Health UK Under a Creative Commons license This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-0408-16300). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health (UK).",

year = "2014",

month = aug,

doi = "10.1016/j.jdent.2014.03.001",

language = "English",

volume = "42",

pages = "902--907",

journal = "Journal of Dentistry",

issn = "0300-5712",

publisher = "Elsevier BV",

number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-effectiveness of silicone and alginate impressions for complete dentures

AU - Hulme, C.

AU - Yu, G.

AU - Browne, C.

AU - O'Dwyer, J.

AU - Craddock, H.

AU - Brown, S.

AU - Gray, J.

AU - Pavitt, S.

AU - Fernandez, C.

AU - Godfrey, M.

AU - Dukanovic, G.

AU - Brunton, P.

AU - Hyde, T. P.

N1 - Open Access funded by Department of Health UK Under a Creative Commons license This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-0408-16300). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health (UK).

PY - 2014/8

Y1 - 2014/8

N2 - Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of silicone and alginate impressions for complete dentures.Methods: Cost effectiveness analyses were undertaken alongside a UK single centre, double blind, controlled, crossover clinical trial. Taking the perspective of the healthcare sector, effectiveness is measured using the EuroQol (EQ-5D-3L) which provides a single index value for health status that may be combined with time to produce quality adjusted life years (QALYs); and Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-EDENT). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios are presented representing the additional cost per one unit gained.Results: Mean cost was higher in the silicone impression group (388.57 pound vs. 363.18) pound. Negligible between-group differences were observed in QALY gains; the silicone group had greater mean OHIP-EDENT gains. The additional cost using silicone was 3.41 pound per change of one point in the OHIP-EDENT.Conclusions: The silicone group was more costly, driven by the cost of materials. Changes in the EQ-5D and QALY gains over time and between arms were not statistically significant. Change in OHIP-EDENT score showed greater improvement in the silicone group and the difference between arms was statistically significant. Given negligible QALY gains and low level of resource use, results must be treated with caution. It is difficult to make robust claims about the comparative cost-effectiveness.Clinical significance: Silicone impressions for complete dentures improve patients' quality of life (OHIP-EDENT score). The extra cost of silicone impressions is 30 pound per patient. Dentists, patients and health care funders need to consider the clinical and financial value of silicone impressions. Different patients, different dentists, different health funders will have individual perceptions and judgements. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

AB - Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of silicone and alginate impressions for complete dentures.Methods: Cost effectiveness analyses were undertaken alongside a UK single centre, double blind, controlled, crossover clinical trial. Taking the perspective of the healthcare sector, effectiveness is measured using the EuroQol (EQ-5D-3L) which provides a single index value for health status that may be combined with time to produce quality adjusted life years (QALYs); and Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-EDENT). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios are presented representing the additional cost per one unit gained.Results: Mean cost was higher in the silicone impression group (388.57 pound vs. 363.18) pound. Negligible between-group differences were observed in QALY gains; the silicone group had greater mean OHIP-EDENT gains. The additional cost using silicone was 3.41 pound per change of one point in the OHIP-EDENT.Conclusions: The silicone group was more costly, driven by the cost of materials. Changes in the EQ-5D and QALY gains over time and between arms were not statistically significant. Change in OHIP-EDENT score showed greater improvement in the silicone group and the difference between arms was statistically significant. Given negligible QALY gains and low level of resource use, results must be treated with caution. It is difficult to make robust claims about the comparative cost-effectiveness.Clinical significance: Silicone impressions for complete dentures improve patients' quality of life (OHIP-EDENT score). The extra cost of silicone impressions is 30 pound per patient. Dentists, patients and health care funders need to consider the clinical and financial value of silicone impressions. Different patients, different dentists, different health funders will have individual perceptions and judgements. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

KW - prosthodontics

KW - quality-of life

KW - impression materials

KW - cost effectiveness

KW - cost

KW - resource

KW - quality-of-life

KW - important difference

KW - health

KW - impact

KW - disease

U2 - 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.03.001

DO - 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.03.001

M3 - Article

SN - 0300-5712

VL - 42

SP - 902

EP - 907

JO - Journal of Dentistry

JF - Journal of Dentistry

IS - 8

ER -

Cost-effectiveness of silicone and alginate impressions for complete dentures

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this