ArticleThe Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology2025
Late mandibular fracture after third molar extraction: a malpractice case or not?
Article in The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fractures of the mandibular angle following surgical extraction of the third molar occur at an incidence ranging from 0.0034% to 0.0075%. The low incidence and the data present in the literature reveal how legal claims based on late mandibular fractures from third molar extractions are unlikely, being an uncommon clinical condition. The present case investigates the causal relationship between the fracture of the mandibular angle and the intervention of extraction of a dental element 3.8 in conditions of semi-inclusion and the possible hypothesis of dental malpractice. About two weeks after the extraction, the patient felt a noise like that produced by shattering glass, followed by severe and sudden pain along the area of the left mandibular joint and numbness. The following day, the patient underwent an orthopantomogram performed by the same medical team that carried out the operation in question, with an incorrect diagnosis of dislocation of the condyle, which is to be treated with muscle relaxants and anti-inflammatories. Upon further radiological investigations performed by different operators, it is concluded that the patient is suffering from a "fracture of the left mandibular angle". The patient, therefore, reported and sued the dentists for the crime of negligent personal injury who had extracted element 3.8. From medical history, clinical examination, and documentation produced by the patient, it can be said that the extraction of element 3.8 was necessary as the pericoronary sac had caused an untreatable periodontal lesion at the distal root of the 3.7. From a medico-legal point of view, it was established that the extraction maneuvers may have caused the fracture of the mandibular angle, but it can be excluded professional responsibility in the criminal field of the medical team that carried out the res judicata intervention, since the fact in itself represents a known complication of the extraction of mandibular third molars.
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.