非创伤充填技术与光固化封闭术成本效果比较  

The Cost-Effectiveness of ART and Resin Sealant on Caries Prevention

作　　者：曹慧珍[1] 冯希平 卢展民[2] 

机构地区：[1]上海第二医科大学附属第九人民医院口腔医学院,上海200011 [2]香港大学牙医学系

出　　处：《上海口腔医学》2002年第1期16-18,共3页Shanghai Journal of Stomatology

摘　　要：目的　比较非创伤充填技术 (ART)与传统窝沟封闭术在实施窝沟封闭方面的成本 效果差异。方法　选择上海市两所小学 7～ 8岁儿童 2 11名 ,口腔内至少有 1对第一恒磨牙无龋。每名儿童一侧的恒磨牙用ART技术充填 ,充填时仅用手工器械和棉花卷 ,不使用橡皮障隔湿。充填材料为玻璃离子粘固粉 ;另一侧用光固化封闭剂封闭窝沟 ,使用便携式牙科治疗器上的吸引器吸取唾液 ,并用棉卷隔湿。记录每个牙封闭所用去的树脂材料和花费的棉卷数及操作时间。 8个月后检查两种材料在牙面上的保留情况。结果　使用传统窝沟封闭术组 ,原始投资额为4 75 0 0元 /台 ,而ART组为 10 0元 /套 ;操作时间在传统窝沟封闭术组每牙需 3 .5 4min ,而ART组需 3 .18min。传统窝沟封闭术组在原始投资额和操作时间方面都显著高于ART组。而传统窝沟封闭术组所用树脂材料的费用显著低于ART组。在封闭剂的保留率方面 ,ART组高于传统的窝沟封闭组。结论　对于缺乏投资设备的地区 ,对儿童采用ART技术封闭窝沟 。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.

关 键 词：非创伤性充填 窝沟封闭术 防龋 成本-效果比 

分 类 号：R781.1[医药卫生—口腔医学]