Background: When dealing with the replacement of one missing tooth, the patient has the option of choosing between different types of treatment interventions. Several important factors play a role in his decision-making process, including his limited financial means and his efforts to solve the problem of missing teeth as effectively as possible. The main goal of the study is the economic-clinical evaluation of implant treatment, as a surgical-prosthetic method in dentistry, in case of replacement of one missing tooth of the molar area. Methods: Cost-utility analysis from the patient's perspective is used for evaluation. The selected comparator is a purely prosthetic solution with the help of a three-unit fixed dental prosthesis. Cost-utility analysis is modelled using Markov models, which consider a 30-year time horizon. Results: Based on the results of modelling, the intervention evaluated by the patient, i.e. treatment with the help of implant-supported single crown, brings exactly 15.31 quality-adjusted prosthesis years (QAPY) after 30 years. The value of incremental cost-utility ratio amounted to USD − 1434. Conclusion: The results of the cost-utility analysis suggest that implant treatment with an implant-supported single crown is more cost-effective than treatment with the three-unit fixed dental prosthesis.

Background: In recent years, there has been an increasing effort to take advantage of the potential use of low magnetic induction devices with less than 1 T, referred to as Low-Field MRI (LF MRI). LF MRI systems were used, especially in the early days of magnetic resonance technology. Over time, magnetic induction values of 1.5 and 3 T have become the standard for clinical devices, mainly because LF MRI systems were suffering from significantly lower quality of the images, e.g., signal–noise ratio. In recent years, due to advances in image processing with artificial intelligence, there has been an increasing effort to take advantage of the potential use of LF MRI with induction of less than 1 T. This overview article focuses on the analysis of the evidence concerning the diagnostic efficacy of modern LF MRI systems and the clinical comparison of LF MRI with 1.5 T systems in imaging the nervous system, musculoskeletal system, and organs of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. Methodology: A systematic literature review of MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases for the period 2018–2023 was performed according to the recommended PRISMA protocol. Data were analysed to identify studies comparing the accuracy, reliability and diagnostic performance of LF MRI technology compared to available 1.5 T MRI. RESULTS: A total of 1275 publications were retrieved from the selected databases. Only two articles meeting all predefined inclusion criteria were selected for detailed assessment. Conclusions: A limited number of robust studies on the accuracy and diagnostic performance of LF MRI compared with 1.5 T MRI was available. The current evidence is not sufficient to draw any definitive insights. More scientific research is needed to make informed conclusions regarding the effectiveness of LF MRI technology.

Lower limb ischemic disease (LEAD) affects a significant portion of the population, with most patients being asymptomatic. Patient screening is necessary because LEAD patients have an increased risk of occurrence of other cardiovascular events and manifestations of disease, in terms of leg symptoms such as intermittent claudication, critical limb ischemia, or amputation. The aim of this work was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening using ABI diagnostics in asymptomatic patients and its impact on limb symptoms associated with LEAD. A discrete event simulation model was created to capture lifetime costs and effects. Costs were calculated from the perspective of the health care payer, and the effects were calculated as QALYs. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to compare ABI screening examination and the situation without such screening. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis were carried out to evaluate the robustness of the results. In the basic setting, the screening intervention was a more expensive intervention, at a cost of CZK 174,010, compared to CZK 70,177 for the strategy without screening. The benefits of screening were estimated at 14.73 QALYs, with 14.46 QALYs without screening. The final ICER value of CZK 389,738 per QALY is below the willingness to pay threshold. Likewise, the results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis and of the scenario analysis were below the threshold of willingness to pay, thus confirming the robustness of the results. In conclusion, ABI screening appears to be a cost-effective strategy for asymptomatic patients aged 50 years when compared to the no-screening option.