DENTAL CLINICS

Hokitika Guardian, 27 December 1928, Page 6

DENTAL CLINICS

NEW ZEALAND AND BI US HAN K

SYSTEMS COMPARED

AUCKLAND, Dec. 25

From flic point ol’ view ol efficiency, economy, ami standard • VU' Ircatincm. performed llh- dental service provided for the seliool-cliiidrcn of New Zealand does noL stiller Oy comparison wilh Hie travelling clinie- operating in Brisbane, according to a report submitted to the Minister for Health (the Hon. Mr Stall worthy) by the Director of UKNew Zealand Division of Dental Hygiene. In Brisbane the initial cost of i.uo 'dental amfiiilaiK c Mini equipment is £691 10s 6tl and in New ZcvJand the initial cost of the equipment is only £53. The New Zealand Government subsidy for tlie erection of a “H” type clinic amounts to approximately £1,30. In Brisbane the annual expenses, after deducting fees received from adult patients, LoLul £llß4. Tinannual cost in New Zealand, where no fees are received, is £261. which inludos dental supplies for the year. Supplies are not' included iu the cost of the Brisbane service. The total operations performed in Brsibano number 3279 (for the . year, and in the same period in New Zealand there wcie 2335. The Australian service performs operations at an average cost of 7.2 shillings, whereas the New Zealand cost is only 2.3 shillings. In discussing..the .question of dental ambulances, the report points out that Queensland's climatic conditions and roads are .much. more favourable than those in Now -Zealand. Dental ambulances would not be able to operate in such districts as Central Otago, where during several months' of the year the thermometer is extremely low, and where last, year water had to be obtained from the river,- ns all other sources were frozen. Even drugs in bottles had to he thawed. A dental ambulance was tried out in the North Auckland district some years ago but in many respects did not prove satisfactory. The Director points out that one of the most important vaunts in tavour of the stationary clinic in u.Se in New Zealand isi that reasonably good aseptic conditions are assured. ''Tlie Brisbane system-,• on which this comparison has been made, is more oh the lines of an itinerant service than' regular, systematic treatment as provided by the New Zealand Government.