Recommendations for community-based protocol:
ART was developed for use in community and/or field settings and can be used
in places where only hand instruments may be available, such as rural settings and
developing countries. ART can be useful in an elderly population who may be in
nursing homes or confined to their homes where only hand instruments may be
available18. Schools or clinics in the community may benefit from ART programs as well
as it requires little set up time and the equipment is portable.
Cost:
ART costs less than conventional restorations. One study by Mickenautsch et al
found that the annual capital cost of the ART approach was 50% less than amalgam
and composite resin restorative procedures in a modern dental setting19. Costs depend
on the time spent on the procedure, who did the procedure (dentist or auxillary) and
non-personnel costs (equipment, materials). The most comprehensive assessment of
cost effectiveness of ART is described in the PAHO report on Oral Health of Low
Income Children: Procedures for ART. Children ages 7-9 from 3 countries (Ecuador,
Panama, Uruguay) were included in the PAHO trials if they had enamel caries and/or
www.allianceforacavityfreefuture.org | © 2010 Alliance for a Cavity-Free Future | PAGE 4/5
dental lesions on first permanent molars. They were randomly assigned to ART or
amalgam and evaluated at 12, 24 and 36 months. The costs of ART treatment including
pre-treatment were about half the cost of amalgam without treatment. They found that
dentists using amalgam cost more than dentists using ART, and this was driven by nonpersonnel
costs. The costs of auxiliaries performing the ART treatment and retreatment
(of failures) resulted in substantial cost-savings.
Recommendations for community-based protocol:ART was developed for use in community and/or field settings and can be usedin places where only hand instruments may be available, such as rural settings anddeveloping countries. ART can be useful in an elderly population who may be innursing homes or confined to their homes where only hand instruments may beavailable18. Schools or clinics in the community may benefit from ART programs as wellas it requires little set up time and the equipment is portable.Cost:ART costs less than conventional restorations. One study by Mickenautsch et alfound that the annual capital cost of the ART approach was 50% less than amalgamand composite resin restorative procedures in a modern dental setting19. Costs dependon the time spent on the procedure, who did the procedure (dentist or auxillary) andnon-personnel costs (equipment, materials). The most comprehensive assessment ofcost effectiveness of ART is described in the PAHO report on Oral Health of LowIncome Children: Procedures for ART. Children ages 7-9 from 3 countries (Ecuador,Panama, Uruguay) were included in the PAHO trials if they had enamel caries and/or www.allianceforacavityfreefuture.org | © 2010 Alliance for a Cavity-Free Future | PAGE 4/5dental lesions on first permanent molars. They were randomly assigned to ART oramalgam and evaluated at 12, 24 and 36 months. The costs of ART treatment includingก่อนการรักษามีต้นทุนประมาณครึ่งของ amalgam ไม่รักษา พวกเขาพบว่าทันตแพทย์ใช้ amalgam ต้นทุนมากกว่าทันตแพทย์ใช้ศิลปะ และนี้ถูกขับเคลื่อน โดย nonpersonnelค่าใช้จ่าย ต้นทุนของการทำศิลปะบำบัดและ retreatment auxiliaries(ของเหลว) ส่งผลให้ประหยัดค่าใช้จ่ายที่พบ
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..