ArticleBMC oral health2025
Two decades of dental malpractice litigations in Türkiye: a retrospective matched cohort study analyzing legal and clinical outcomes.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of malpractice fears and defensive approaches in orthodontists' clinical practice.European oral research · 2026Article
- Enhancing dental students' motivation and legal knowledge via courtroom role-playing.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis methodological study aims to provide a comprehensive database of dental malpractice cases in Türkiye over the past 20 years, with a focus on the patterns of malpractice claims across different specialties and settings, as well as the characteristics of the events that give rise to litigation. The study also seeks to clarify to raise awareness of patient safety among dental practitioners to enhance care quality and liability risk management by providing insights into the legal outcomes of malpractice cases.
methodsA total of 100 dental malpractice claims spanning 23 years (2000-2023) were included in this retrospective, matched cohort study. The cases were categorized into four groups: Malpractice; Complication; Undetermined; and Unresolved. The analysis focused on various legal and clinical variables, including the type of dental treatment, the physician's level of duty, the presence of auxiliary healthcare personnel, the type of healthcare institution, the legal outcome of the case (decision, settlement, and compensation status), the reasons for filing the malpractice claim, and the appointment of expert witnesses. Data were analyzed using the chi-square test and Fisher's Exact Test, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
resultThe majority of cases were related to prosthodontics (31%) and oral surgery (24%), followed by oral diagnosis (14%), implantology (12%), orthodontics (9%), endodontics (5%), restorative dentistry (2%), pedodontics (2%), and periodontology (1%). The most common reason for malpractice claims was incorrect treatment (88%), followed by incomplete treatment (33%), misdiagnosis (32%), patient fault (21%), treatment delays (19%), lack of follow-up (16%), failure to obtain informed consent (10%), delays in diagnosis (3%), document forgery (3%), and infectious disease (2%).
conclusionThis study highlights the importance of thorough planning, assessments, and preventive measures in dental practice, particularly in prosthodontics, oral surgery, and implantology, which involve invasive procedures, prolonged treatments, and high costs-factors that contribute to higher patient dissatisfaction and increased malpractice risks. Addressing these factors through improved oversight and decision-making could reduce the frequency of litigation and minimize legal disputes.
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.