Nihon University, Sakaecho-Nishi Matsudo, Chiba, Japan.
J Prosthodont. 2010 Oct;19(7):512-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2010.00628.x. Epub 2010 Aug 16.
Conventional dentures will remain the only treatment available to most edentulous people for the foreseeable future. In this study, we compared the efficiency of two methods of making complete conventional dentures-the traditional academic standard (T) and a simplified technique (S) used in private practice. We have previously shown that they produce similar levels of patient satisfaction and denture quality.
Data were gathered during a randomized controlled clinical trial of 122 subjects from initial examination until 6-month follow-up. For this report, the direct costs of providing one set of conventional complete dentures by T or S techniques were estimated. All materials used were recorded and their cost was calculated in Canadian dollars (CAN$). The costs of fabrication in an outside laboratory were added. Clinician's labor time was recorded for every procedure. Between-group comparisons for each clinical procedure were carried out with independent t-tests. The number of patients in each group who needed postdelivery treatment was compared with Chi-square tests. The effect of group assignment and of treatment difficulty on outcomes was analyzed with multiple regression analysis.
The mean total cost of the T method was significantly greater than S (CAN$166.3; p < 0.001), and clinicians spent 90 minutes longer (p < 0.001) on clinical care. The difficulty of the case had no significant influence on outcomes.
The results indicate that the S method is the more cost-efficient method and that there are no negative consequences that detract from the cost savings.
在可预见的未来，传统义齿仍将是大多数无牙颌患者唯一可用的治疗方法。在本研究中，我们比较了两种制作全口常规义齿的方法的效率——传统学术标准（T）和私人执业中使用的简化技术（S）。我们之前已经表明，它们产生的患者满意度和义齿质量水平相似。
数据是从 122 名受试者的初始检查到 6 个月随访期间收集的。本报告中，通过 T 或 S 技术制作一副常规全口义齿的直接成本进行了估计。记录了所有使用的材料，并以加元（CAN$）计算了其成本。在外部实验室制作的成本也被添加了进去。记录了每位医生完成每一个步骤的工时。使用独立 t 检验对每个临床操作的组间差异进行了比较。使用卡方检验比较了每组中需要交付后治疗的患者数量。使用多元回归分析分析了分组和治疗难度对结果的影响。
T 法的平均总成本明显高于 S 法（CAN$166.3；p < 0.001），临床医生的护理时间也延长了 90 分钟（p < 0.001）。病例的难度对结果没有显著影响。
结果表明，S 法是更具成本效益的方法，而且没有任何负面后果会降低成本节约。
