HealthPartners Dental Group, Bloomington, MN, USA.
J Public Health Dent. 2012 Spring;72(2):122-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2011.00291.x. Epub 2012 Feb 16.
To compare the outcomes of restorations placed by restorative function auxiliaries (RFAs) with those placed by dentists.
Between July 1, 2007, and June 30, 2008, we matched 455 restorations placed by RFAs working at HealthPartners Dental Group with the same number placed by dentists. Restorations were matched by tooth number, American Dental Association procedure code, and patient age-group.
Of 910 restorations, 17 (1.9 percent) had problems potentially related to the filling or crown placement during the first year. Problem rates were not significantly different (p = 0.33) for restorations placed by RFAs (1.3 percent, 6 of 455) and those placed by dentists (2.4 percent, 11 of 455).
There was no significant difference in problem rates for restorations placed by RFAs versus those placed by dentists. This finding may free dentists to handle more difficult cases, alleviating some of the pressures of daily practice and meeting the need for improved access.
比较修复功能助手（RFA）和牙医所进行的修复治疗的效果。
在 2007 年 7 月 1 日至 2008 年 6 月 30 日期间，我们将在 HealthPartners Dental Group 工作的 455 名 RFA 所进行的 455 次修复治疗与相同数量的牙医所进行的修复治疗进行匹配。修复治疗通过牙齿编号、美国牙科协会手术代码和患者年龄组进行匹配。
在 910 次修复治疗中，在第一年中有 17 次（1.9%）可能与填充或牙冠放置有关的问题。RFA 组（1.3%，6/455）和牙医组（2.4%，11/455）的修复治疗问题发生率没有显著差异（p=0.33）。
RFA 组与牙医组的修复治疗问题发生率没有显著差异。这一发现可能使牙医能够处理更困难的病例，缓解日常实践中的一些压力，并满足改善就诊机会的需求。
