Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 1999
Treatment practices in caries prevention for 6-year-olds in Finland.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Varsio S, Vehkalahti M, Murtomaa H
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate caries-preventive treatment practices in relation to caries state and eruption of first permanent molars (FPMs) among 6-year-olds (n = 3489) examined and treated in public dental clinics in Helsinki during 1992.
METHODS: The study subjects were selected on the basis of their caries state using a two-point study design: the high-caries group (n = 99) had the greatest number of DT + dt, the cavity-free group (n = 32) had neither past nor present caries. Evaluation of dentists' caries-preventive treatment decisions was based on data from detailed personal oral health records.
RESULTS: In total, 22% of the high-caries patients (mean DT + dt 8.7; range 4-18) had been judged by their dentists as high-risk patients. Eruption of FPMs had no influence on dentists' judgement on caries risk. A subject's number of DT + dt had no influence on the intensity of preventive treatment given, but those with a high-risk judgement from a dentist received more preventive measures per visit than did other high-caries patients. For high-caries patients with erupting FPMs, three visits in 10 included preventive intervention other than sealants, compared to nine in the cavity-free group. Intensity of oral hygiene instruction correlated with presence of erupting FPMs, yet 86% of the patients with erupting FPMs had received no oral hygiene instruction.
CONCLUSIONS: Dentists should be encouraged to use standardized criteria, including data on caries state and eruption stage, in judging each patient's risk of caries to provide intensified caries-preventive treatment to those most in need.
METHODS: The study subjects were selected on the basis of their caries state using a two-point study design: the high-caries group (n = 99) had the greatest number of DT + dt, the cavity-free group (n = 32) had neither past nor present caries. Evaluation of dentists' caries-preventive treatment decisions was based on data from detailed personal oral health records.
RESULTS: In total, 22% of the high-caries patients (mean DT + dt 8.7; range 4-18) had been judged by their dentists as high-risk patients. Eruption of FPMs had no influence on dentists' judgement on caries risk. A subject's number of DT + dt had no influence on the intensity of preventive treatment given, but those with a high-risk judgement from a dentist received more preventive measures per visit than did other high-caries patients. For high-caries patients with erupting FPMs, three visits in 10 included preventive intervention other than sealants, compared to nine in the cavity-free group. Intensity of oral hygiene instruction correlated with presence of erupting FPMs, yet 86% of the patients with erupting FPMs had received no oral hygiene instruction.
CONCLUSIONS: Dentists should be encouraged to use standardized criteria, including data on caries state and eruption stage, in judging each patient's risk of caries to provide intensified caries-preventive treatment to those most in need.