Comparative Analysis of Regulatory Requirements for the Organization of Dental Care in Russia and China

The relevance of the topic is determined by the need to improve the regulatory framework for organizing dental care, taking into account international experience and modern requirements for the quality, safety, and efficiency of medical services. In the context of active integration of national healthcare systems and the expansion of international cooperation, the comparative study of approaches to the regulation of medical activities acquires special importance. The use of a comparative approach makes it possible to identify patterns in the formation of legal norms, analyze the strengths and weaknesses of different management models, and assess their adaptability to epidemiological challenges, technological innovations, and the dynamically changing needs of the population. Materials and Methods. The study used the comparative legal method applied to the analysis of key regulatory documents governing the organization of dental care in Russia and China. The materials analyzed included Orders of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation No. 786n of July 31, 2020 “On the approval of the procedure for providing medical care to the adult population for dental diseases,” and No. 83n of February 10, 2016 “On the approval of disinfection procedures,” as well as certain provisions of the sanitary rules (SanPiN). The Chinese sources included the Basic Standards for Clinics (2022), the WS/T 842-2024 Infection Management Standard, and the T/CHSA-023-2023 Guideline. This methodological approach ensured an objective assessment of the structural and functional similarities and differences between the regulatory systems. The analysis revealed differences in the degree of formalization, level of detail, and regulatory priorities. The Russian system is characterized by strict standardization and detailed staffing regulations, which ensure manageability and stability. The Chinese model focuses on infection prevention, sanitary control, and flexibility in the implementation of requirements. The obtained results make it possible to outline directions for harmonization and identify opportunities for the mutual adoption of effective regulatory practices.