This analysis finds critical barriers to accessibility and quality in prosthodontic care, suggesting improvements in healthcare structure.
Introduction. Prosthodontic care holds a special place in the healthcare system, restoring lost dental functions, improving the quality of life, and preventing complications associated with tooth loss and malocclusion. The need for high-quality prosthodontic care is steadily increasing in the context of population aging, rises in life expectancy, and the growing burden of chronic diseases. Therefore, delivering prosthodontic care becomes a topic of both clinical and socioeconomic interest. Purpose. To identify and analyze the organizational factors that determine the accessibility and quality of prosthodontic care, as well as to verify the directions to improve them within the healthcare system. Materials and methods. The study applied a systematic and interdisciplinary approach to assessing processes of healthcare organization. The following methods were used: content analysis of legal acts and policy documents of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, comparative analysis of regional care models, and logical and structural analysis of organizational factors. Results. Limited geographic access to prosthodontic care is one of the key organizational barriers. In most Russian regions, dental services are concentrated in large cities, while there are no structural units equipped for prosthetics in rural and remote areas. Another critical factor is the shortage of qualified personnel. Both public and private healthcare organizations, especially single-specialty clinics, experience a shortage of prosthodontists. Vulnerable groups have significantly limited access to prosthodontic care, as it is mostly provided on a fee basis. The deteriorated dental laboratory equipment and poorly implemented digital technologies are also important organizational factors. The modern dental care system is characterized by a lack of connection between therapeutic, surgical, and prosthodontic services.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A. Avetisyan (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: