DOI: https://doi.org/10.24959/cphj.14.1293

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of antibacterial medicines used in dentistry

M. M. Boyko, O. I. Zaytsev, L. V. Nefyodova, L. V. Iakovlieva

Abstract


This article presents data on pharmacoeconomic analysis of 15 antimicrobial medicines, which are used in dentistry. In order to conduct this analysis the method of estimation of drug antimicrobial properties has been suggested and applied; it is based on vector algebra that allowed calculating a complex indicator of the drug antimicrobial activity for quantitative estimation of the pharmacological effect. It has been shown that the tincture of Sophora japonica and the solution of chlorhexidine digluconate have the best indicators of antimicrobial properties and the lowest treatment cost among the medicines studied at the level of 5-10 UAH. The second group of medicines – “Sanguiritrin” and “Chlorophillipt” (Galichpharm) – is as good as the first one in terms of antimicrobial properties, but the course of treatment with these medicines costs up to 30-40 UAH. The third group of medicines – “Metrogyl Denta”, the tincture of eucalyptus – exhibits antimicrobial properties of a medium potency and their cost for the treatment course is in the range of 10-20 UAH. The forth group of medicines – “Rotokan”, “Romazulan”, the tincture of calendula and the tincture of propolis – exhibits the weak antimicrobial properties and has a relatively low cost of treatment in the range of 5-20 UAH. The fifth group of medicines – “Stomatofit”, “Orasept”, “Hexoral”, “Fitodent”, and “Kamistad” – exhibits the weakest antimicrobial properties and has the most expensive course of treatment in the range of 40-80 UAH. It has been noted that some of the medicines studied have impractical volume since up to half of the pack is left after finishing the course of treatment. Therefore, we can recommend manufacturers to reduce the drug quantity in the pack by 30-50% for consumer’s convenience.


Keywords


pharmacoeconomic analysis; synthetic and natural dental medicines

Full Text:

PDF

References


Волянський Ю.Л., Гриценко І.С., Широкобоков В.П. та ін. Вивчення специфічної активності антимікробних лікарських засобів: Метод. рекоменд. – К., 2004. – 38 с.

Волянський Ю.Л., Бірюкова С.В., Гриценко І.С. та ін. Вивчення специфічної активності антимікробних лікарських засобів. – Х., 2004. – 38 с.

Державна фармакопея України / Державне підприємство «Науково-експертний фармакопейний центр». – 1-е вид. – Х.: РІРЕГ, 2001. – Доп. 1. – 2004. – 520 с.

Компендиум 2005 – лекарственные препараты / Под ред. В.Н.Коваленко, А.П.Викторова. – К.: МОРИОН, 2005. – 1920 с.

Основные методы лабораторных исследований в клинической бактериологии / Под ред. ВОЗ. – Женева, 1994. – 131 с.

Albandar J.M., Rams T.E. // Periodontol. 2000. – 2002. – Vol. 29. – P. 7-10.

Axelsson P., Albandar J.M., Rams T.E. // Periodontol. 2000. – 2002. – Vol. 29. – P. 235-246.

Bascones Martinez A., Figuero Ruiz E. // Av. Periodontol. Implantol. – 2005. – Vol. 17, №3. – P. 111-118.

Cobb Charles M. // The J. of Dental Hygiene. – 2008. – Vol. 83, №6. – P. 4-9.

John G. Meechan, Robin Seymour Drug Dictionary for Dentistry. 1-st ed. – Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA. 2002. – 444 p.

Nishihara T., T. Koseki // Periodontol. 2000. – 2004. – №36. – P. 14-26.

Position Paper Guidelines for Periodontal Therapy // J. of Periodontol. – 2001. – Vol. 72, №11. – P. 1624-1628.

Quirynen M., Teughels W., De Soete M., van Steenberghe D. // Periodontol. 2000. – 2002. – Vol. 28. – P. 72-90.

Slots J. // J. Periodontal Res. – 2002. – Vol. 37. – P. 389-398.

Slots J., Jorgensen M.G. // Periodontol. 2000. – 2002. – Vol. 28. – P. 298-312.

Walker C.B., Karpinia K., Baehli P. // Periodontol. 2000. – 2004. – Vol. 36. – P. 146-165.


GOST Style Citations






Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abbreviated key title: Klìn. farm.

ISSN 2518-1572 (Online), ISSN 1562-725X (Print)