Anne Kaline Claudino Ribeiro, Pamela Tayná Matias Bezerra, Clebya Rosalia Pereira de Medeiros, Lucas Xavier Bezerra de Menezes, Yuri Wanderley Cavalcanti, Murali Srinivasan, Adriana da Fonte Porto Carreiro
In a university setting, DDs are a resource-efficient option that optimizes clinical and laboratory time by significantly reducing the overall costs. Therefore, this approach may be a cost-effective strategy with economic advantages, while maintaining patient-reported outcomes comparable to those achieved with CDs.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost, time-efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of conventional complete dentures (CDs) and 3D-printed dentures (DDs).
METHODS: Twenty-three edentulous patients (mean age: 65.96± 8.74) participated in this clinic study. Each participant received two complete dentures fabricated using conventional 5-visit workflow (CD), and a 3-visit digital technique (DD). Clinical and laboratory times were recorded for all fabrication steps, including impressions, jaw relations, try-in, insertion and denture processing. Cost analysis was conducted from the provider perspective and included material costs based on purchase prices and labor costs estimated from recorded procedure times and the corresponding reference fee schedules for clinicians and dental technicians. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using overall patient satisfaction and Oral-Health-related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) as effectiveness indicators to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
RESULTS: Costs of conventional dentures (429.40 (421.44-439.73)) were statistically higher (P<0.001) compared to denture fabricated using digital workflow (276.94 (269.79-287.92)). Patient overall satisfaction and OHRQoL did not differ between the techniques (P>0.05). The digital dentures required significantly reduced clinical (90.50 min vs. 179.68 min; P<0.001) and laboratory (150.85 min vs. 562.98 min; P<0.001) times, respectively. Monte Carlo simulations indicated the digital workflow was more cost-efficient and cost-effective, since CD had lower NMB and negative ICER for all analyses.
CONCLUSION: In a university setting, DDs are a resource-efficient option that optimizes clinical and laboratory time by significantly reducing the overall costs. Therefore, this approach may be a cost-effective strategy with economic advantages, while maintaining patient-reported outcomes comparable to those achieved with CDs.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: 3D-printed complete dentures substantially reduce clinical and laboratory time, lower overall costs, and offer a cost-effective alternative to conventional dentures without compromising patient satisfaction or oral-health-related quality of life.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: REBEC - 2c96zr3.