Glass hybrid cost effective option for restoring permanent molars, reveals study
When considering the long-term (life-time) cost-effectiveness, glass hybrid showed cost savings but composite was limitedly more effective, finds a recent research. Overall, cost-effectiveness differences seems limited or in favour of glass hybrid, reports FalkSchwendicke and colleagues from the Department of Oral Diagnostics, Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany
The study is published in the Journal of Dentistry.
The authors assessed the long-term cost-effectiveness of glass hybrid (GH) versus composite (CO) for restoring permanent molars using a health economic modelling approach.
A multi-national (Croatia, Serbia, Italy, Turkey) split-mouth randomized trial comparing glass hybrid and composite in occlusal-proximal two-surfaced cavities in permanent molars (n=180/360 patients/molars) provided data on restoration failure and allocation probabilities (i.e. failure requiring re-restoration, repair or endodontic therapy).
Using Markov modelling, the authors followed molars over the lifetime of an initially 12-years-old individual. Our health outcome was the time a tooth was retained, explained the lead author.
A mixed-payers' perspective within German healthcare was used to determine costs (in Euro 2018) using fee item catalogues. Monte-Carlo-microsimulations, univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER)s and cost-effectiveness-acceptability were quantified.
The results showed that in the base-case scenario, composite was more effective (tooth retention for a mean (SD) 54.4 (1.7) years) but also more costly (694 (54) Euro) than glass hybrid (53.9 (1.7) years; 614 (56 Euro). The ICER was 158 Euro/year, i.e. payers needed to be willing to invest 158 Euro per additional year of tooth retention when using composite. In a sensitivity analysis, this finding was confirmed or glass hybrid found more effective and less costly.
As a result, it was concluded that composite was more costly and limitedly more effective than glass hybrid, and while there is uncertainty around our findings, glass hybrid is likely a cost-effectiveness option for restoring permanent molars.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103751
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.