Long-term treatment costs and cost-effectiveness of restoration repair versus replacement

ObjectivesWhen managing partially defective restorations, dentists can choose between repair and replacement. We aimed to assess the long-term treatment costs of repairs and replacements.MethodsPartially defective anterior and posterior composite restorations in permanent teeth had been repaired or replaced in a German university hospital and were retrospectively followed until censoring or one of the following events: (1) Extraction, (2) Major complications including placement of indirect restorations, endodontic treatments and extractions, or (3) Any complications including major complications and further direct restorations. Costs were estimated from a German mixed public-private-payer perspective. Cost-effectiveness differences were described using median-based incremental-cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER_MEDIAN). Statistical analysis was performed using generalized linear mixed modeling (GLM), Chi²-test, and Wilcoxon rank-sum test (p < 0.05).ResultsA total of 616 repairs in 468 patients (follow-up: 4.9 ± 4.1 years) and 264 replacements in 218 patients (follow-up: 4.8 ± 4.3) were included. While replacements were associated with higher initial treatment costs, median annualized treatment costs did not significantly differ between repair (47.58 Euro IQR: 24.41–107.04]) and replacement (50.64 Euro IQR: 26.30–118.78]; p > 0.05), but were higher for molars (75.53 Euro IQR: 24.41–92.18]) than incisors (45.03 Euro IQR: 28.19–168.50]; p = 0.011). The difference in the % of extractions, major and any complications were minimal between both groups. The mean ICER_MEDIAN of replacement vs. repair was -146.8 Euro/% when extractions were considered as outcomes. Regarding major and any complications, mean ICER_MEDIAN amounted to 67.6 Euro/% and 23.9 Euro/%, respectively.SignificanceRepairs and replacements of partially defective restorations showed similar long-term costs and cost-effectiveness.