KR102286515B1 - Cost computation device for dental implant surgery based on the information of surgical operation plan - Google Patents

Abstract

The disclosed invention relates to a device for calculating the surgical cost of a dental implant, and relates to a surgical difficulty factor according to a patient's three-dimensional oral information, numerical information of the implant, and a surgical plan, and a prognosis according to the patient's general condition and oral condition A surgical success rate prediction unit that evaluates by giving a quantitative index of (-) to a factor, and calculates how much success rate is expected compared to 100% by adding up the quantitative indices of (-) for all factors considered; And, a standard cost calculator that calculates a standard cost that is a sum of labor wages, material costs, and profits required for implant surgery; and a surgery cost calculator for calculating implant surgery costs by applying the surgical success rate calculated by the surgery success rate predictor inversely proportional to the standard cost calculated by the reference cost calculator.

Description

Dental implant surgery cost calculation device using surgical plan information {Cost computation device for dental implant surgery based on the information of surgical operation plan}

The present invention relates to an apparatus for calculating dental implant surgery cost, and more specifically, objective implant surgery by quantitatively evaluating a number of factors affecting the success rate of implant surgery for each patient in addition to using information on each patient's individual surgery plan. It relates to a dental implant surgery cost calculation device using surgical plan information that calculates a cost and provides it to a dental hospital and a patient so that an appropriate cost can be calculated through a mutually reasonable consultation.

A dental implant (hereinafter, simply referred to as “implant”) is also called an artificial tooth or a third tooth. In other words, an implant is a dental treatment procedure that restores the function of natural teeth by implanting artificial teeth made of materials with excellent biocompatibility, for example, titanium-based metal materials, in the jawbone at the site where the tooth is missing or where the tooth is extracted, or It refers to the artificial tooth itself. If there is insufficient gingival bone in the place to place the implant, the implant may be implanted after increasing the volume of bone tissue to sufficiently cover the implant through additional surgery such as bone grafting or bone extension.

These implants have various structures, and as can be seen from several known documents, they are basically composed of a fixture, an abutment, and an element of an artificial crown. The fixture is formed in the shape of a screw made of a material with excellent biocompatibility and is implanted in the alveolar bone where the tooth is lost, and the bone is fused with the bone. It is combined with the fixture at the bottom by a screw structure or an interference fit method.

Unlike prosthetics such as bridges that are cut and connected around missing teeth, such dental implants have become an important prosthetic method that cannot be omitted in dental treatment due to their biomechanical excellence and the concept of treating only the missing teeth. Many surgeries are being performed due to the expansion of social and health insurance.

However, statistical data (May 2014-February 2015, Member Grievance Committee Dental Medical Litigation Case Case, Korea Dentist Association) showed that the proportion of dental implant treatment in litigation among dental treatment subjects was 28%. . In view of this, simply saying that the success rate of dental implants is 95% in the papers means the clinical success rate of the dental implant itself under controlled conditions, and it should be distinguished from the success rate of surgery and treatment in actual dental hospitals. do.

In other words, the biocompatibility of the implant itself under controlled conditions may be excellent as investigated in the paper, but the actual success rate of implant surgery, which is generally performed widely, is low due to several factors. For this reason, from the perspective of the patient who received the operation by paying a relatively large amount of money in expectation of the excellence of the implant procedure, if the operation fails, the patient's discomfort and pain are aggravated, and compensation for damages due to the special field of dentistry It is not easy to do so, and in the end, the accumulation and spread of damage cases deepens the patient's distrust and further intensifies into another social conflict, resulting in wasted health insurance provided by the government.

In this social phenomenon, the patient visits a dental clinic only once to collect information without making a decision on surgery. Because it is difficult, I personally put a lot of time and effort into making an accurate judgment in advance.

Among them, there is a typical method such as collecting information through acquaintances, and in recent years, information is collected by sharing treatment reviews through the Internet. However, this kind of information collection can be said to be an information collection method that requires attention and has clear limitations as the treatment review itself may be subjectively distorted or written with the intention of inducement for patients.

In this way, even if several dental clinics are visited several times for consultation or treatment reviews, hospitals and clinics may inform patients of unreasonable amounts for advertisement purposes in order to induce patients. As a result, a vicious cycle is occurring in which the process of diagnosis, consultation, and treatment regarding dental implants between the patient and the hospital is further distorted.

In particular, in the case of medical expenses or treatment costs, as introduced in the paper on "Dental Implant Bottom-Up Cost Estimation" ( http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2014.52.1.18 ) , and "Dental implant using a top-down method" As was introduced in the paper on "Cost Estimation" (Shin Shin, Min-young Kim. Journal of the Korean Dental Association Vol.52 No.7, 2014.07, 416 - 424), the focus is on the patient's case itself, such as the amount required for the operation of the dental hospital. Because the cost of treatment is determined mainly based on operational logic rather than personal judgment, there are cases where the price is too high for operation, and on the contrary, unfair trade is caused by setting the price too low by commercial judgment.

In the end, this gives patients the perception that the cost of implant treatment itself is calculated in a sloppy fashion, repeating a vicious cycle of deepening conflicts and doubts, causing even legitimate treatment to proceed at a low cost, or treating easily treatable cases at an expensive price. Side effects may occur.

Therefore, various efforts are made to accurately utilize the advantages of dental implants, to restore trust between patients and medical personnel, and to provide consultation and treatment based on accurate, rational and objective information exchanges based on judgment, expectation, and suggestion between patients and medical personnel. This needs to be attempted, and furthermore, it is necessary to ensure that the state-supported health insurance can be applied effectively.

Korean Patent No. 10-1960476 (registered on March 14, 2019)

Shin Seong-seong, 　 Kim Min-young. "Dental Implant Cost Estimation Using Top-down Method", Journal of the Korean Dental Association Vol.52 No.7, 2014.07, 416 - 424

The present invention quantitatively analyzes and evaluates information about a patient's implant surgery plan, calculates an objective implant surgery success rate as a numerical value, and derives and outputs a reasonable implant surgery cost reflecting the calculated implant surgery success rate. An object of the present invention is to provide a device for calculating the cost of dental implant surgery.

The present invention is a device for calculating the surgical cost of a dental implant, with respect to the surgical difficulty factor according to the patient's three-dimensional oral information, numerical information of the implant, and the surgical plan, and prognosis-related factors according to the patient's general condition and oral condition. A surgical success rate prediction unit that evaluates by giving a quantitative index of (-) and calculating how much success rate is expected compared to 100% by adding up the quantitative indices of (-) for all factors considered; and, in implant surgery a standard cost calculation unit that calculates a standard cost by adding up the required labor wages, material costs, and profits; and a surgery cost calculator for calculating implant surgery costs by applying the surgical success rate calculated by the surgery success rate predictor inversely proportional to the standard cost calculated by the reference cost calculator.

Here, the surgical success rate prediction unit includes a surgical difficulty analysis unit that analyzes the surgical difficulty factor, and the surgical difficulty analyzer analyzes the input patient's three-dimensional oral image and quantitatively extracts the surgical difficulty factor. .

And, it is preferable that the 3D oral image includes image information of the implant according to the surgical plan.

In addition, the surgical success rate prediction unit includes a surgical prognosis analysis unit that analyzes the prognosis-related factors, and the surgical prognosis analysis unit gives a quantitative index of (-) to each prognosis-related factor based on the inputted patient questionnaire information characterized in that

In addition, the surgery cost calculator may calculate the implant surgery cost by using a function in which the surgical success rate acts as a reciprocal to the reference cost.

Alternatively, the surgery cost calculator may calculate the implant surgery cost using a discontinuous function in which the surgical success rate is applied with different weights for each section with respect to the reference cost.

And, according to an embodiment of the present invention, the surgical success rate predicting unit may give a quantitative index of (-) by applying a weight to at least any one or more factors included in the surgical difficulty factor and the prognosis-related factor. .

Furthermore, the surgical success rate prediction unit gives weights reflecting the strength of the influence on implant surgery success for each factor of the surgical difficulty factor and prognosis-related factors, and sums up the quantitative index of (-) to which the weight is applied. The surgical success rate can be calculated.

In addition, the surgery cost calculator may calculate the implant surgery cost by applying the surgical success rate in inverse proportion to the remaining costs excluding the material cost among the reference costs, and then summing the material costs.

According to the present invention having the above configuration, after collecting and analyzing objective and quantitative data, establishing a surgical plan and establishing standardized indicators, the difficulty and success rate of surgery are predicted with quantitative numerical values, and based on this, patients and medical personnel By consulting with each other and estimating costs, it is possible to reduce distrust and unnecessary time wastage resulting from subjective counseling and cost estimation, as in the past, and prevent unreasonable demands or emotional fights.

In addition, cases that can lower costs can be rationally and rationally lowered according to quantitative standards, and cases requiring relatively higher costs can also be reasonably adjusted according to quantitative standards, so that both patients and medical personnel can be satisfied in the end. It is possible to proceed rationally and to expect to improve the quality and satisfaction of treatment.

In addition, in some cases, as the success rate of surgery is relatively low in the analysis of the cost settlement device, if a patient or doctor wishes to apply non-life insurance, insurance premiums can be set before surgery. It is understood as a settlement of costs and helps both patients and doctors to avoid risk and improve satisfaction.

1 is a view summarizing various factors affecting the success rate of implant surgery.
Figure 2 is a view showing the overall configuration of the dental implant surgery cost calculation device of the present invention.
Figure 3 is a view showing an example of a three-dimensional oral image containing the image information of the implant.
4 is a view showing an example of extracting the distance between the fixture and the neural tube in FIG. 3 .

Hereinafter, some embodiments of the present invention will be described in detail with reference to exemplary drawings. In adding reference numerals to the components of each drawing, it should be noted that the same components are given the same reference numerals as much as possible even though they are indicated on different drawings. In addition, in describing the embodiment of the present invention, if it is determined that a detailed description of a related known configuration or function interferes with the understanding of the embodiment of the present invention, the detailed description thereof will be omitted.

In addition, in describing the components of the embodiment of the present invention, terms such as first, second, A, B, (a), (b), etc. may be used. These terms are only for distinguishing the components from other components, and the essence, order, or order of the components are not limited by the terms. When it is described that a component is “connected”, “coupled” or “connected” to another component, the component may be directly connected or connected to the other component, but another component is between each component. It will be understood that may also be interposed and indirectly "connected", "coupled" or "connected".

The present invention relates to a dental implant surgery cost calculation device, and in particular, objective implant surgery cost is calculated by quantitatively evaluating a number of factors affecting the success rate of implant surgery for each patient in addition to this while utilizing surgery plan information, By providing this to dental clinics and patients, it is possible to reduce distrust and unnecessary time wastage resulting from subjective consultation and cost estimation as in the past, and to prevent unreasonable demands and emotional fights by calculating appropriate costs through mutually reasonable consultations. It is an invention characterized by being able to.

In order to quantitatively evaluate the success rate of dental implant surgery, it is necessary to first look at the criteria for success or failure of dental implants.

A dental implant (hereinafter, it may be simply referred to as an "implant") is largely structurally and functionally composed of three parts: a fixture, an abutment (abutment), and an upper prosthesis. As it is said, it is not an exaggeration to say that it depends on whether it can be firmly planted in the alveolar bone without any gaps and then good bone fusion is induced on the surface of the fixture, thereby exerting a bonding force similar to that of natural teeth. In other words, the fixture, which forms the basis of the implant and receives most of the load during mastication, must be firmly placed in the alveolar bone to ensure its function as an artificial tooth for a long time, and only then can the implant operation be evaluated as successful.

As such, in order for the fixture to be well engrafted in the alveolar bone, the alveolar hole and the fixture formed when the fixture is initially placed in the alveolar bone at the planned position, direction, and depth must be in close contact. cell) undergoes compression necrosis, and if it is too loose, inflammatory cells or soft tissue cells are first established between the surface of the fixture and the alveolar bone. It is not fixed and falls off, resulting in the failure of the implant surgery.

In this way, in order to reduce unnecessary drilling and to place the fixture in an accurate position, direction, and depth, whether or not a surgical guide is used or not affects the surgical difficulty and success rate. And, in order to produce a guide for implant surgery, it is necessary to use a CT image and 3D image information obtained by making an image impression with an oral scanner or 3D image information scanned by an impression model made through material impression, and this 3D oral information may include a fixture placement plan, and various factors that can estimate the success rate of implant surgery can be extracted from this comprehensive patient-specific image information.

Quantitative studies on factors affecting the success of implant surgery have been conducted over a long period of time, and quantitative factors affecting the prognosis of surgery have also been derived through long-term observation through several papers.

Accordingly, in order to predict successful surgery and prognosis, it is necessary to first look at the quantitative values of implant fixtures, abutments, and prostheses. It is reasonable and effective for implant surgery to be planned, to consult with the patient based on this, and to settle the cost.

For example, the distance between the implant and the implant must be at least 3 mm, the alveolar bone around the implant must be at least 1 mm, or the distance between the top of the implant fixture and the prosthesis margin must be at least 1.5 mm. etc. are examples, and the prediction of numerical measurement and surgical difficulty and surgical prognosis can be reflected and derived more accurately when obviously based on 3D information such as dental CT.

Therefore, the present invention utilizes the patient's three-dimensional oral information and makes quantitative analysis from the three-dimensional information an essential requirement or premise.

In addition, as a well-known technology, the 'surgical guide', a technology that helps the implant surgery almost match the planned one, also utilizes the implant surgery information planned based on 3D information, so it can be linked with the cost settlement device of the present invention. can In other words, cost settlement can be performed by quantitative standards based on three-dimensional information, but there is no guarantee that surgery will be performed responsibly for the cost notified to the patient if simple analysis and settlement are performed. It is preferable for the purpose of the present invention to use a guide so that the operation proceeds according to the three-dimensional information used for settlement.

1 is a summary of various factors (hereinafter, briefly referred to as "success factor") affecting the success rate of implant surgery. Success rate factors can be broadly divided into surgical difficulty factors and prognosis-related factors.

The surgical difficulty factor, as the term suggests, refers to a factor that affects the difficulty of implant surgery. Naturally, the higher the difficulty of the operation, the lower the success rate of implant surgery. For each surgical difficulty factor, an appropriate range or minimum/maximum value that can predict a nearly 100% success rate can be set. A quantitative index can be assigned.

That is, the fact that a certain surgical difficulty factor has a (-) quantitative index acts as a factor for lowering the surgical success rate, and as a result, is treated as a factor that increases the final dental implant surgery cost (including prognostic management cost). In addition, most surgical difficulty factors are treated as zero values when they are above an appropriate value, that is, they are treated as not adversely affecting the surgical success rate. there may also be

With reference to FIG. 1, the meaning of various surgical difficulty factors will be described. However, it is necessary to understand that the surgical difficulty factors shown in FIG. 1 are exemplary, and some of the displayed surgical difficulty factors may be omitted, and conversely, other surgical difficulty factors may be further added.

In addition, the strength or importance of the influence of each surgical difficulty factor on the success rate of implant surgery is not necessarily treated as equal, and a weight proportional to the importance may be assigned. This will be further explained in the section explaining the methodology for calculating the cost of implant surgery.

Some of the various surgical difficulty factors shown in FIG. 1 will be described in what sense they affect the surgical success rate.

As described above, the success or failure of the implant procedure is greatly affected by how much the fixture is firmly planted in the alveolar bone as planned and good bone fusion is induced on the fixture surface thereafter. In this fact, the residual alveolar bone thickness and fixture diameter can be included in the surgical difficulty factor. In other words, it is good to plant a long and thick fixture as much as possible, but it is not always possible to plant a thick and long one.

In addition, the fixture should be placed biologically and safely against anatomical tissues such as the neural tube or maxillary sinus adjacent to the alveolar bone. In particular, if the fixture is placed to compress or invade the neural tube, it may lead to nerve damage and cause great inconvenience such as numbness. . In this regard, with respect to the lower part of the fixture, how many mm apart the maxillary sinus and the neural tube are can be a quantitative indicator for examining the difficulty of the operation and predicting the surgical success rate.

In addition, the position, direction, and depth of the fixture must be determined so that the prosthesis to be placed on the upper part performs the chewing movement, that is, the masticatory movement. Inflammation may occur between them, which may eventually lead to the fixture falling off. Therefore, the angle between the fixture and the abutment is also an important criterion for determining the success rate of surgery.

In addition, there are three implants to be placed, and the prognosis after implant treatment may be affected depending on how much occlusal pressure each implant has to bear, such as raising four or five prostheses. However, since post-management costs can be included in the calculation of implant costs, it is reasonable to reflect such quantitative judgments on the prognosis in the cost settlement.

Various factors can be included in the difficulty of surgery that affects the success rate of implant surgery. The distance between the implants, the height at which the implant is immersed in the alveolar bone, the diameter of the fixture, the length of the fixture, the type of prosthesis, the degree, shape and area of the fixture exposed from the alveolar bone, the height at which the maxillary sinus is raised, the volume and location of the bone graft, and Shape, area and shape of gum transplantation, elapsed period after tooth extraction, when implantation is placed, angle between fixture and abutment, ratio of number of prostheses to number of fixtures, whether and type of bone-inducing regeneration material such as BMP is applied, cantilever Whether to apply, the ratio of the length of the fixture to the height of the abutment and the prosthesis may be included.

In addition to the difficulty of surgery, prognostic factors should be considered as factors affecting the success rate and cost of implant surgery.

The prognosis-related factors are factors that accompany the overall evaluation of how good the patient's general and oral conditions are. it is for estimating In most cases, the cost of implant surgery includes post-operative management costs, and if the prognosis is poor, surgical treatment comparable to reoperation may be accompanied. If it is expected that a lot of time and money will be required, it is reasonable to include this in the initial implant cost calculation.

This is similar to the concept of insurance. For example, it is fair to set premiums higher for insured persons who are statistically at high risk of cancer by examining family history, smoking and drinking status, frequency, exercise time, etc. when signing up for cancer insurance. It is similar to what can be seen as justifiable from an aspect. In other words, by calculating the appropriate surgical cost by considering each patient's prognosis-related factors, it is possible to avoid the billing bill that equalizes the prognosis management cost that is expected to be spent in the future for all patients.

As prognostic factors, systemic factors in consideration of the patient's systemic condition may include stress index, drinking, smoking, bone density, high blood pressure, diabetes, hemostatic disorder, nutritional status, metabolic disease, inflammation level, and the like. In addition, oral factors related to oral conditions may include oral cleanliness, dental strength, and eating habits. Prognosis-related factors also act as (-) quantitative indices, like the surgical difficulty factors.

By quantitatively evaluating the surgical difficulty factor and prognosis-related factors described above, the success rate of implant surgery can be expressed numerically. For example, if the alveolar bone thickness around the fixture is set to be at least 1 mm as one of the surgical difficulty factors, it can be set to lower the surgical success rate by a value of -1 whenever 0.1 mm is insufficient. In addition, as a prognostic factor, the frequency of drinking can be set to lower the surgical success rate by a value of -1 every once a week. can be quantified for each patient.

Of course, it is not necessary to evaluate all factors included in the strategic evaluation with equal importance, and weights may be assigned to each factor so that factors having a large influence on the surgical success rate can be treated as more important.

If the surgical success rate calculated quantitatively for each patient is applied to the standard cost, an objective implant surgery cost calculation for each patient is made.

Here, the reference cost means the cost of the implant surgery itself without considering the surgical success rate at all, and this reference cost includes labor wages and material costs, and furthermore, a profit of a certain percentage or a fixed unit price.

Labor wages refer to fees allocated to various medical activities performed by dentists and medical assistants. These medical activities include all labor activities involved in implant surgery, such as consultation, chart generation, various diagnoses including imaging, implant surgery planning, surgery preparation, surgery and assistance, prosthesis management, and post-treatment. Since it is usually done according to the manual, it can be estimated as a standardized cost.

Material cost refers to the cost of various tangible items that are invested in implant surgery. The cost can be calculated by considering whether the instrument is disposable or semi-permanent, and the type, etc., reasonably. The material cost can be automatically determined according to the implant surgery plan, and based on this, the cost of each material already set is added up to calculate the total material cost.

In this way, when the standard cost consisting of labor wages, material cost, and a certain profit is determined, the above-described numerical implant surgery success rate is applied to calculate a reasonable and objective implant surgery cost.

Basically, the cost of implant surgery is determined by applying the surgical success rate in inverse proportion to the standard cost. For example, if the surgical success rate is 100%, there is almost no risk of surgical failure, so the implant surgery cost is calculated as the standard cost. On the other hand, if the surgical success rate is 100%, the expected success rate of the surgery is half and half, and it is expected that more costs will be required for prognosis management or additional treatment. The cost is calculated as the cost of implant surgery.

As a function of the surgical success rate, it can be configured in various ways to be applied in inverse proportion to the reference cost. For example, on the basis of a function in which the surgical success rate acts as a reciprocal, it can be configured to move the coordinates of this function or adjust the slope of the increase or decrease to obtain a reasonable cost calculation that meets the rule of thumb. In addition, as a different non-continuous function, the implant surgery cost is calculated as the standard cost × 1.0 for the 100-95% surgical success rate, and the implant surgery cost is calculated as the reference cost × 1.2 for the 95-85% surgical success rate. It is also possible to divide the surgical success rate into sections and apply reasonable weights to each section.

What is important here is that by applying the quantitatively evaluated surgical success rate, it is possible to calculate rationally differentiated implant surgery costs for each patient. This means that unnecessary time wastage can be reduced.

Here, when applying the surgical success rate to the standard cost, it may be reasonable to apply only the labor wage excluding the material cost, and then calculate the implant surgery cost by adding the material cost to the labor wage to which the surgical success rate is applied. This is because the additional cost required for patients with a low implant surgery success rate is mainly due to prognosis management or additional treatment, so the re-lodging cost itself rarely increases.

Therefore, it is reasonable to notify the patient in advance of this fact and charge additional material costs if additional material costs are incurred during the management stage. Of course, on the contrary, even if the surgery is calculated to have a low success rate, a certain cost may be refunded if the operation is unexpectedly completed and the prognosis is good, which can be a big factor in forming trust between the patient and the medical staff.

2 is a view showing the overall configuration of the dental implant surgery cost calculation device 10 of the present invention, and is configured so that the calculation of the implant surgery cost described above can be performed through a device implemented on a computer.

Referring to FIG. 2 , the apparatus 10 for calculating the surgical cost of a dental implant according to the present invention includes a surgical success rate prediction unit 100 , a reference cost calculation unit 200 , and a surgery cost calculation unit 300 . are doing Here, it should be noted that each component of the present invention is distinguished from each other based on its main function, and may be composed of a smaller number or a larger number of elements or means having the same function.

The surgical success rate prediction unit 100 is a component that quantitatively evaluates various factors affecting the success of the implant surgery shown in FIG. 1 and calculates the finally predicted implant surgery success rate as a numerical value.

As already described, since various factors affecting the success of implant surgery can be largely classified into surgical difficulty factors and prognosis-related factors, the surgical success rate prediction unit 100 reflects this and analyzes the surgical difficulty factors to analyze the surgical difficulty factors. It includes a unit 110 and a surgical prognosis analysis unit 120 for analyzing prognosis-related factors.

The surgical difficulty analysis unit 110 evaluates the patient's three-dimensional oral information, numerical information of the implant, and various surgical difficulty factors according to the surgical plan, and calculates the result as a (-) quantitative index. For example, it is a clinically proven result that surgical success is guaranteed when the distance between the implant and the implant is at least 3 mm. gives a quantitative index of This operation is performed for all surgical difficulty factors processed by the surgical difficulty analysis unit 110 .

In particular, the surgical difficulty analysis unit 110 analyzes the input patient's three-dimensional oral image to quantitatively extract various surgical difficulty factors, and the input three-dimensional oral image contains image information of the implant according to the surgical plan. may be included.

3 is a view showing an example of a three-dimensional oral image including image information of the implant, while viewing the patient's three-dimensional CT image, the implant fixture and the surgical plan of the abutment are freely designed thereon. Therefore, in the three-dimensional oral image in which the implant surgery plan is established, the width of the remaining alveolar bone, the distance between the base of the maxillary sinus and the alveolar column, the height at which the implant is immersed in the alveolar bone, the diameter of the fixture, the length of the fixture, the angle between the fixture and the abutment, etc. A wide variety of surgical difficulty factors are included. In addition, as exemplarily shown in FIG. 4 , the distance from the lower part of the fixture to the neural tube may be extracted.

As such, the surgical difficulty analysis unit 110 can quantitatively extract various surgical difficulty factors by analyzing the input patient's three-dimensional oral image, and evaluate the extracted surgical difficulty factors to reduce the surgical success rate (-) can be given a quantitative index of . Of course, if there is an operation difficulty factor that is difficult to express in the patient's 3D oral image, this may be input in a separate method, for example, in the form of metadata included in the patient's 3D oral image.

And, the surgical prognosis analysis unit 120 for the prognosis-related factors accompanying the overall evaluation of how good the patient's general condition and oral condition, for the same purpose as the surgical difficulty analysis unit 110, each prognosis-related factors A quantitative index of (-) is given to Prognosis-related factors are cognitions for quantitatively estimating how well the patient's physical condition can recover after implant surgery. , prognosis-related factors may be input to the surgical prognosis analysis unit 120 as the patient's questionnaire information.

In this way, the surgical success rate prediction unit 100 gives a quantitative index of (-) to the surgical difficulty factor and the prognosis-related factor and evaluates it, thereby summing the quantitative indices of (-) for all factors considered to compare 100% It calculates how much success rate is expected.

According to an embodiment of the present invention, the surgical success rate prediction unit 100 may give a quantitative index of (-) by applying a weight to at least any one or more factors included in the surgical difficulty factor and the prognosis-related factor. Preferably, all factors of the surgical difficulty factor and prognosis-related factors are given a weight that reflects the strength of their influence on implant surgery success, and the weighted (-) quantitative index is added to calculate the surgical success rate, , it is possible to derive a more reasonable and high success rate of implant surgery through this.

And, the reference cost calculation unit 200 is a component that calculates a reference cost that is the sum of labor wages, material costs, and profits required for implant surgery. As explained above, the labor wage refers to the rate allocated to various medical activities performed by dentists and medical assistants, and the material cost refers to the cost of various types of implant surgery. (eg, how many implants will be operated, etc.) can be calculated as a standardized calculation.

The operation cost calculation unit 300 comprehensively reflects the reference cost calculated by the reference cost calculation unit 200 and the operation success rate calculated by the surgery success rate prediction unit 100 to suggest a reasonable and objective implant surgery cost, that is, to the patient. It is a component that outputs the cost to be charged.

The implant surgery success rate calculated by the surgery success rate prediction unit 100 is a result of how much success rate is expected compared to 100%, and the value has a value of 100% or less, and accordingly, the surgery cost calculation unit 300 is the standard cost The implant surgery cost is calculated by applying the surgical success rate calculated by the surgical success rate prediction unit 100 to the reference cost calculated by the calculation unit 200 in inverse proportion.

As a method of applying the surgical success rate to the base cost in inverse proportion to the base cost, a continuous function in which the surgical success rate acts as the inverse of the base cost is used, or a discontinuous function in which the surgical success rate is applied with different weights for each section to the base cost is used. Various methods are possible, such as calculating the cost of implant surgery using a function.

Then, the surgery cost calculation unit 300 may calculate the implant surgery cost by applying the surgical success rate in inverse proportion to the remaining costs excluding the material cost, for example, and then summing the material costs among the standard costs. This is considering the case where it is reasonable to treat the material cost as a kind of fixed cost that does not depend on the surgical success rate. In this way, it is possible to treat various costs included in the standard cost by dividing them into success rate-dependent costs and success rate-independent costs. is of course

The above description is merely illustrative of the technical spirit of the present invention, and various modifications and variations will be possible without departing from the essential characteristics of the present invention by those skilled in the art to which the present invention pertains. Therefore, the embodiments disclosed in the present invention are not intended to limit the technical spirit of the present invention, but to explain, and the scope of the technical spirit of the present invention is not limited by these embodiments.

10: dental implant surgery costing device
100: surgical success rate prediction unit
110: surgery difficulty analysis unit
120: surgical prognosis analysis unit
200: base cost calculator
300: surgery cost calculator

Claims (9)

A device for calculating the surgical cost of a dental implant, comprising:
The three-dimensional oral information of the patient, the numerical information of the implant, the surgical difficulty factor according to the surgical plan, and the prognosis-related factors according to the patient's general condition and oral condition were evaluated by giving a (-) quantitative index. Surgical success rate prediction unit that calculates how much success rate is expected compared to 100% by adding up the quantitative indices of (-) for all factors;
a standard cost calculator that calculates a standard cost that is a sum of labor wages, material costs, and profits required for implant surgery; and
a surgery cost calculator for calculating implant surgery costs by inversely applying the surgical success rate calculated by the surgical success rate predictor to the standard cost calculated by the standard cost calculator;
Dental implant surgery cost calculation device comprising a. The method according to claim 1,
The surgical success rate prediction unit includes a surgical difficulty analysis unit that analyzes the surgical difficulty factor,
The surgical difficulty analyzer analyzes the input patient's three-dimensional oral image, dental implant surgery cost calculation apparatus, characterized in that quantitatively extracting the surgical difficulty factor. 3. The method according to claim 2,
Dental implant surgery cost calculation device, characterized in that the three-dimensional oral image includes image information of the implant according to the surgical plan. The method according to claim 1,
The surgical success rate prediction unit includes a surgical prognosis analysis unit that analyzes the prognosis-related factors,
The surgical prognosis analysis unit dental implant surgery cost calculation device, characterized in that given a quantitative index of (-) to each prognosis-related factor based on the inputted questionnaire information of the patient. The method according to claim 1,
The surgery cost calculation unit, Dental implant surgery cost calculation apparatus, characterized in that for calculating the implant surgery cost using a function in which the surgical success rate acts as a reciprocal to the reference cost. The method according to claim 1,
The surgery cost calculation unit, Dental implant surgery cost calculation device, characterized in that for calculating the implant surgery cost by using a discontinuous function in which the surgical success rate is applied with different weights for each section with respect to the reference cost. The method according to claim 1,
The surgical success rate predicting unit, dental implant surgery cost calculation apparatus, characterized in that by applying a weight to at least any one or more factors included in the surgical difficulty factor and the prognosis-related factor to give a (-) quantitative index. 8. The method of claim 7,
The surgical success rate prediction unit gives weights reflecting the strength of the influence on implant surgery success for each factor of the surgical difficulty factor and prognosis-related factors, and summing the quantitative index of (-) to which the weight is applied to the surgical success rate Dental implant surgery cost calculation device, characterized in that for calculating the. The method according to claim 1,
The surgery cost calculation unit applies the surgical success rate in inverse proportion to the remaining costs excluding the material cost among the reference costs, and then sums the material costs to calculate the implant surgery cost. .

Images