Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
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.
Zitzmann et al. (2013) studied this question.