Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Sep;92(6):512-4.
doi: 10.1308/003588410X12664192076016. Epub 2010 Jun 1.

Are patients referred for NHS-funded dental implant treatment being selected in accordance with national guidelines and subsequently funded by their primary care trust?

Karen V Andrews  1 , Jonathan R Penny, Paul A King
Affiliations

Are patients referred for NHS-funded dental implant treatment being selected in accordance with national guidelines and subsequently funded by their primary care trust?

Karen V Andrews et al. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2010 Sep.

Abstract

Introduction: The Faculty of Dental Surgery, The Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCSE), published a national guideline document in 1997 detailing specific selection criteria for National Health Service (NHS) funded dental implant treatment. The aim of this audit was to assess whether patients selected for NHS-funded dental implants at Bristol Dental Hospital (BDH) met the RCSE national criteria for treatment and received funding from their primary care trust (PCT).

Patients and methods: A retrospective audit over a period of 2 years was undertaken using medical records and an existing Microsoft Excel database. All patients who had an application submitted to their local PCT for NHS-funded dental implants by BDH were included in this audit.

Results: A total of 82 applications for dental implant funding were made by BDH and 100% met the RCSE criteria. Fifty-one patients (62.2%) in total had their application for funding approved. Thirty-one patients (37.8%) that met the RCSE guidelines for NHS-funded dental implant treatment had their applications refused. Twenty-five (49%) out of 51 cases in the partially dentate category and six (27.3%) cases in the edentulous group were unsuccessful in their application for NHS-funded dental implants. However, all applications for patients with acquired maxillofacial defects were successful.

Conclusions: Patient selection by the BDH for NHS-funded implants complied with the RCSE guidelines. However, there was significant variation in funding between PCTs for those patients who apparently fulfilled the RCSE guidelines. NHS resources are not being allocated equitably for dental implant 'high-priority' patients and it would appear that a so-called 'postcode lottery' exists between PCTs.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Clinical indications for funding application.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Funding decision according to PCT.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Funding decision according to reason for application.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Type of implant and clinical reason for application where funding is not granted.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Brånemark PI, Jemt T. A long term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990;5:347–59. - PubMed
    1. The Royal College of Surgeons of England. Guidelines for selecting appropriate patients to receive treatment with dental implants: Priorities for the NHS. London: RCSE; 1997. Faculty of Dental Surgery, National Clinical Guidelines. - PubMed
    1. Butterworth CJ, Baxter AM, Shaw MJ, Bradnock G. The provision of dental implants in the National Health Service hospital dental services - a national questionnaire. Br Dent J. 2001;190:93–6. - PubMed
    1. Calman K, Hine D. A policy framework for commissioning cancer services: a report by the expert advisory group on cancer to the Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales. London: Department of Health; 1995.
    1. Cunningham SJ. Economic evaluation of healthcare - is it important to us? Br Dent J. 2000;188:250–4. - PubMed

Substances