Research Outputs (Oral Health Sciences)
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/handle/10539/18776
Browse
Search Results
Item Comparative cost of ART and conventional treatment within a dental school clinic(2002) Mickenautsch, S.; Munshi, I.; Grossman, E. S.BACKGROUND: The changing oral health needs in South Africa require that both the teaching and clinical techniques of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) form a part of the restorative undergraduate curriculum. OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to establish and compare the estimated costing of an amalgam, composite resin and ART restoration within the Board of Health Funders (BHF) recommended scale of benefits at the School of Oral Health Sciences Oral and Dental Hospital, University of the Witwatersrand (SOHS). METHODS: Fixed and variable costs were calculated by pricing items and equipment used in each procedure. The output values were established according to the recommended scale of benefits (BHF, 1999). This enabled the calculation of contribution margins and net income for each of the three restorations. RESULTS: The annual capital cost for the ART approach is approximately 50% of the other two options (e.g. per multiple surface restoration ART = R1.58; amalgam and composite resin restorative procedures: R3.12 and R3.10 respectively), despite the fact that ART restorations are rendered in a modern dental setting. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that implementation of the ART approach within the clinic setting of the SOHS can be accomplished without additional cost. Furthermore ART can be performed as an economically viable alternative to conventional treatment procedures within the clinic setting. The study represents a first step towards determining the cost efficiency of implementing ART as a pragmatic and cost-effective restorative option within the SOHS, University of the Witwatersrand.Item Microscope observations of ART excavated cavities and restorations(2002) Grossman, E. S.; Mickenautsch, S.This in vitro light and scanning electron microscope study examined 39 extracted tooth specimens, hand excavated and restored according to atraumatic restorative treatment (ART), using 'press finger', by 'skilled' and 'novice' operators. Surface features of five excavated cavities, 12 restoration surfaces and the tooth restoration relationships of 22 bisected restored tooth crowns were examined to better understand the clinical effect of the technique. Hand-excavated cavity surfaces were rough with a complex surface arrangement of grooves, crevices, ridges, furrows and overhangs. Enamel and dentine were covered with debris except where surface fractures exposed enamel prisms and occluded dentinal tubules. Ten of the 22 bisected restored specimens had large voids (1-3 mm in length) within the glass-ionomer cement (GIC) restoration or at the tooth-restoration interface. Smaller bubbles (< 50 microns) and irregular shaped inclusions were common in all restorations. Adaptation of the GIC to the cavity margin was extremely variable and easily distinguished from the effects of dehydration shrinkage. It is thought that cavity surface irregularities could cause placement problems making it difficult to adapt the GIC to cavity peripheries. While 'press finger' enabled excellent penetration of GIC into fissures, the technique left restoration surfaces rough. At low magnification, surfaces were irregular; at magnifications higher than X500 scratches, pits, porosities, chipping and voids were evident. However, the 'press finger' technique was able to merge the GIC to a fine edge on the occlusal surface so that the restoration margin was not obvious. No apparent difference was found between the restorations placed by the 'skilled' and 'novice' operators. Tooth-restoration relationships in the ART approach are entirely different to those of traditional restorative techniques. The ART approach requires skill, diligence and comprehension to be undertaken correctly.