Willingness-to-pay for Mandibular two-implant overdentures: a societal perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Oral health care service in Canada is funded primarily by private payers, whose acceptance of a new dental technology depends on their valuation of it. This preference study will provide information to dentists, insurance companies and policy makers on what people are willing to pay for implant overdentures, whether directly or with insurance/government coverage. We aimed to determine how people would value the benefits of mandibular two-implant overdentures using a Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) strategy. Variations in WTP amounts regarding socioeconomic status, etc. were also measured. Methods: 2001 telephone numbers of a representative sample of Canadians were obtained from a consumer database provider. Individuals who agreed to participate completed either an internet-based or telephonic survey that consisted of 3 cost scenarios. These included: (i) paying it yourself (out-of-pocket), (ii) coverage with private health insurance, and (iii) publicly financed through additional taxes. Personal information (e.g. age, income, etc.) were used as independent variables in a regression model to assess the determinants of WTP amounts. Results: Among 1096 respondents, 317 participated in the survey (response rate: 28.9%). Participants (age: 41.2±0.6; 54.3% male) who were dentate or missing some teeth were willing to personally pay $5,347 for implant overdentures. Considering a 1 in 5 chance of becoming edentate, they were willing to pay an average of $26.93 as monthly payments for private dental insurance. They were also willing to pay additional yearly taxes of $103.63 to support a public tax-funded program. WTP amounts increased substantially with the individuals' household income. Results of the regression analyses were significantly associated with income, self-perceived need and dental insurance status (ps<0.05). Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that dentate individuals would be willing to pay a significant amount to receive mandibular two-implant overdentures if they become edentate, whether paying privately or contributing to private insurance coverage or government programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".