File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: The cost-effectiveness of ART and resin sealant on caries prevention. [in Chinese]

TitleThe cost-effectiveness of ART and resin sealant on caries prevention. [in Chinese]
非創傷充填技術與光固化封閉術成本效果比較
Authors
KeywordsART
Sealant
Caries Prevention
Cost Effective Ratio
Issue Date2002
Publisher上海第二醫科大口腔醫學院. The Journal's web site is located at http://shky.chinajournal.net.cn/
Citation
上海口腔醫學, 2002, v. 11 n. 1, p. 16-18 How to Cite?
Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2002, v. 11 n. 1, p. 16-18 How to Cite?
Abstract目的 比較非創傷充填技術 (ART)與傳統窩溝封閉術在實施窩溝封閉方面的成本 效果差異。方法 選擇上海市兩所小學 7~ 8歲兒童 2 11名 ,口腔內至少有 1對第一恒磨牙無齲。每名兒童一側的恒磨牙用ART技術充填 ,充填時僅用手工器械和棉花卷 ,不使用橡皮障隔濕。充填材料為玻璃離子粘固粉 ;另一側用光固化封閉劑封閉窩溝 ,使用便攜式牙科治療器上的吸引器吸取唾液 ,并用棉卷隔濕。記錄每個牙封閉所用去的樹脂材料和花費的棉卷數及操作時間。 8個月后檢查兩種材料在牙面上的保留情況。結果 使用傳統窩溝封閉術組 ,原始投資額為4 75 0 0元 /臺 ,而ART組為 10 0元 /套 ;操作時間在傳統窩溝封閉術組每牙需 3 .5 4min ,而ART組需 3 .18min。傳統窩溝封閉術組在原始投資額和操作時間方面都顯著高于ART組。而傳統窩溝封閉術組所用樹脂材料的費用顯著低于ART組。在封閉劑的保留率方面 ,ART組高于傳統的窩溝封閉組。結論 對于缺乏投資設備的地區 ,對兒童采用ART技術封閉窩溝 ,能用較少投入和較短時間達到齲病預防目的. Objective Pit and fissure sealants have been widely used to caries prevention. More often, ART is used in caries treatment. ART was used to prevent caries in recent years. However, the cost effectiveness of ART that is used to caries prevention still remains unclear. The aim of the present research was to compare the cost effectiveness of ART with that of resin sealant in caries prevention for primary school children.Methods Two hundred and twelve children aged 7 to 9 years old took part in this research. The molar of every child on one side of the mouth was sealed by light cure resin sealant(Concise, 3M) and by chemically firmed glass ionomer (Ketac molar,ESPE ) on the opposite side. The routine methods were used to seal teeth and the cotton rolls and suction were used to keep dry. The time for manipulation, amount of materials and times for repetition in the program were recorded. The retained rate of sealed material on the teeth was checked month after treatment.Results The results indicated the time for manipulation, cotton rolls and times for repetition in sealant was respectively 3.54(min.), 2.52 and 0.04(times) in sealant and 3.18(min.), 1.13 and 0.03(times) in ART. The material of ART was more expensive than that of resin sealant. Respectively, the costs of glass ionomer and resin sealant were 3.77 and 0.93(Yuan). However, the cost of equipment used in sealant were much more expensive than that used in ART. Furthermore, there was no significantly difference between sealant and ART in the remaining rate.Conclusion The results suggest that ART is more cost effective than sealant on caries prevention.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/66607
ISSN
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.120

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCao, HZen_HK
dc.contributor.authorFeng, XPen_HK
dc.contributor.authorLo, ECMen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-06T05:47:47Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-06T05:47:47Z-
dc.date.issued2002en_HK
dc.identifier.citation上海口腔醫學, 2002, v. 11 n. 1, p. 16-18en_HK
dc.identifier.citationShanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2002, v. 11 n. 1, p. 16-18-
dc.identifier.issn1006-7248en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/66607-
dc.description.abstract目的 比較非創傷充填技術 (ART)與傳統窩溝封閉術在實施窩溝封閉方面的成本 效果差異。方法 選擇上海市兩所小學 7~ 8歲兒童 2 11名 ,口腔內至少有 1對第一恒磨牙無齲。每名兒童一側的恒磨牙用ART技術充填 ,充填時僅用手工器械和棉花卷 ,不使用橡皮障隔濕。充填材料為玻璃離子粘固粉 ;另一側用光固化封閉劑封閉窩溝 ,使用便攜式牙科治療器上的吸引器吸取唾液 ,并用棉卷隔濕。記錄每個牙封閉所用去的樹脂材料和花費的棉卷數及操作時間。 8個月后檢查兩種材料在牙面上的保留情況。結果 使用傳統窩溝封閉術組 ,原始投資額為4 75 0 0元 /臺 ,而ART組為 10 0元 /套 ;操作時間在傳統窩溝封閉術組每牙需 3 .5 4min ,而ART組需 3 .18min。傳統窩溝封閉術組在原始投資額和操作時間方面都顯著高于ART組。而傳統窩溝封閉術組所用樹脂材料的費用顯著低于ART組。在封閉劑的保留率方面 ,ART組高于傳統的窩溝封閉組。結論 對于缺乏投資設備的地區 ,對兒童采用ART技術封閉窩溝 ,能用較少投入和較短時間達到齲病預防目的. Objective Pit and fissure sealants have been widely used to caries prevention. More often, ART is used in caries treatment. ART was used to prevent caries in recent years. However, the cost effectiveness of ART that is used to caries prevention still remains unclear. The aim of the present research was to compare the cost effectiveness of ART with that of resin sealant in caries prevention for primary school children.Methods Two hundred and twelve children aged 7 to 9 years old took part in this research. The molar of every child on one side of the mouth was sealed by light cure resin sealant(Concise, 3M) and by chemically firmed glass ionomer (Ketac molar,ESPE ) on the opposite side. The routine methods were used to seal teeth and the cotton rolls and suction were used to keep dry. The time for manipulation, amount of materials and times for repetition in the program were recorded. The retained rate of sealed material on the teeth was checked month after treatment.Results The results indicated the time for manipulation, cotton rolls and times for repetition in sealant was respectively 3.54(min.), 2.52 and 0.04(times) in sealant and 3.18(min.), 1.13 and 0.03(times) in ART. The material of ART was more expensive than that of resin sealant. Respectively, the costs of glass ionomer and resin sealant were 3.77 and 0.93(Yuan). However, the cost of equipment used in sealant were much more expensive than that used in ART. Furthermore, there was no significantly difference between sealant and ART in the remaining rate.Conclusion The results suggest that ART is more cost effective than sealant on caries prevention.-
dc.languagechien_HK
dc.publisher上海第二醫科大口腔醫學院. The Journal's web site is located at http://shky.chinajournal.net.cn/zh_HK
dc.relation.ispartof上海口腔醫學en_HK
dc.relation.ispartofShanghai Journal of Stomatology-
dc.subjectART-
dc.subjectSealant-
dc.subjectCaries Prevention-
dc.subjectCost Effective Ratio-
dc.titleThe cost-effectiveness of ART and resin sealant on caries prevention. [in Chinese]en_HK
dc.title非創傷充填技術與光固化封閉術成本效果比較-
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.emailLo, ECM: hrdplcm@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityLo, ECM=rp00015en_HK
dc.identifier.doi10.3969/j.issn.1006-7248.2002.01.007-
dc.identifier.pmid14983325-
dc.identifier.hkuros68631en_HK
dc.identifier.volume11-
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.identifier.spage16-
dc.identifier.epage18-
dc.publisher.placeChina-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats