Long-term cost-effectiveness of glass hybrid versus composite in permanent molars.

Abstract Objectives We assessed the long-term cost-effectiveness of glass hybrid (GH) versus composite (CO) for restoring permanent molars using a health economic modelling approach. Methods A multi-national (Croatia, Serbia, Italy, Turkey) split-mouth randomized trial comparing GH and CO 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, we followed molars over the lifetime of an initially 12-years-old individual. Our health outcome was the time a tooth was retained. 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. Results In the base-case scenario, CO was more effective (tooth retention for a mean (SD) 54.4 (1.7) years) but also more costly (694 (54) Euro) than GH (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 CO. In a sensitivity analysis, this finding was confirmed or GH found more effective and less costly. Conclusion CO was more costly and limitedly more effective than GH, and while there is uncertainty around our findings, GH is likely a cost-effectiveness option for restoring permanent molars. Clinical significance When considering the long-term (life-time) cost-effectiveness, GH showed cost savings but CO was limitedly more effective. Overall, cost-effectiveness differences seems limited or in favour of GH.