ArticleJournal of dental sciences2023
Endodontic malpractice litigations in the United States from 2000 to 2021.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Professional liability in dentistry: structure and causes of judicial litigation.The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology · 2024Article
- Persistent paresthesia of inferior alveolar nerve after accidental extrusion of calcium hydroxide paste containing iodoform into the mandibular canal.Journal of dental sciences · 2024Article
- Analysis of death related to dental treatment from Taiwan judicial judgment database.Journal of dental sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Little is known regarding the outcomes and distinguishing characteristics of lawsuits related to endodontic procedures. This study used a verdict-based data from United States of America to analyze the factors associated with endodontic malpractice lawsuits and mitigate the risk of litigation. Materials and methods: The LexisNexis legal database was used to search for endodontic malpractice cases from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2021 using the terms "medical malpractice" and (I) "endodontist" (II) "endodontics" (III) "root canal" (IV) "dental pulp." Each case was reviewed for reported medical characteristics and litigation outcomes. Results: A total of 650 cases were initially identified, and 97 cases were included in the final analysis. Eighty-four (86.6%) of the 97 defendants were general practitioners; 42 cases favored the plaintiff, 53 (54.6%) favored the defendant, 1 was partial win/loss, and 1 was settled. The annual case mean was 4.41 ± 2.17 (Mean ± SD). The major allegations favored for the patients involving paresthesia, root perforation, rubber dam not use, wrong tooth therapy, and infections. Plaintiffs who claimed with post-procedural reasons had a significantly higher winning rate than non-post-procedural reasons (P < 0.05). Conclusion: In the present study, 54.6% of endodontic litigation favored the dentists in the US. The authors recommend that general practitioners refer complicated cases to endodontists and treat carefully to avoid paresthesia, canal perforation and infections. Clinicians should always diagnose and treat correctly, shared decision making with the patient, use rubber dam routinely, and timely management to prevent malpractice claims.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.