The Prevalence, Type and Severity of Forensic Dental Cases in Türkiye

Öz

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess prevalence, type and severity of forensic dental cases in Türkiye. Materials and Methods: 620 of forensic dental cases which were referred to the Department of Dentistry of the 7th Specialization Board of the Council of Forensic Medicine, Türkiye, between April 2019 and March 2024 evaluated retrospectively. Malpractice and complication occurance were determined, type and severity of cases analysed as well in six grades. Results: 69.7% of the cases were female (n=432), and 30.3% were male (n=188), (p<0.05). 75% of the claims has decided as complication and 25% of them decided as malpractice by the board (p<0.05). 52.1% of the cases underwent surgery, patients received orthodontic, prosthetic, and endodontic treatment 13.5%, 21.5% and 12.9% respectively (p<0.05). The second level severity was the most common with 41.9%, while the sixth level was the least common with 1.5% (p<0.05). Conclusion: Within the limits of this study, the most common failure following dental procedures were surgical treatments and second level of severity had the highest incidence. While many of the failures have been considered as complications by the board, it should not be overlooked that in recent years, there has been an increase in malpractice claims.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• forensic dental case
• malpractice
• complication

Türkiye’de Meydana Gelen Adli Diş Hekimliği Vakalarının Prevalans, Çeşit ve Ciddiyet Açısından Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiye’de meydana gelen adli diş hekimliği vakalarının prevalans, çeşit ve ciddiyet açısından değerlendirilmesidir. Yöntem: 2019 Nisan-2024 Mart arasında Adli Tıp Kurumu 7. İhtisas Kurulu diş hekimliği bölümüne gönderilmiş 620 adli dental vaka geriye dönük olarak incelenmiştir. Komplikasyon ve malpraktis kararları ve vakaların çeşitlerinin yanısıra vakaların ciddiyeti de 6 seviyede değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Vakaların %69.7’si (n=432) kadın, %30.3’ü (n=188) ise erkektir (p<0.05). Konsey tarafından vakaların %75’i komplikasyon, %25’i ise malpraktis olarak sonuca bağlanmıştır (p<0.05). Vakalar içerisinde cerrahi işlemlerin oranı %52.1 iken, ortodontik protetik ve endodontik vakaların oranı ise sırasıyla %13.5, %21.5 ve %12.9’dur (p<0.05). Vakaların ciddiyeti açısından 2. seviye %41.9 ile en sık görülürken en az görülen %1.5 ile 6. seviyedir (p<0.05). Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın sınırları dahilinde adli diş hekimliği vakalarında cerrahi işlemler ve ciddiyet açısından 2. seviye başarısızlıklar en sık görülen prosedürlerdir. Vakaların büyük bir kısmı konsey tarafından komplikasyon olarak sonuca bağlanmış olsa da son yıllarda malpraktis davalarındaki büyük artış akıldan çıkartılmamalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• adli diş hekimliği
• malpraktis
• komplikasyon

Teşekkür

Bu çalışmanın hazırlanması sürecinde desteklerini esirgemeyen Sn. Doktor Öğretim Üyesi Hızır Aslıyüksek ve Sn. Uzm. Dr. Caner Beşkoç'a en içten teşekkürlerimi sunarım.

Kaynakça

1. Yamalik N, Perea-Pérez B. Patient safety and dentistry: what do we need to know? Fundamentals of patient safety, the safety culture and implementation of patient safety measures in dental practice. Int Dent J. 2012;62:189-196.
2. Tiwana KK, Morton T, Tiwana PS. Aspiration and ingestion in dental practice: a 10-year institutional review. J Am Dent Assoc. 2004;135:1287-91.
3. Thusu S, Panesar S, Bedi R. Patient Safety in Dentistry- state of play as revealed by a national database of errors. Br Dent J. 2012;213:E3.
4. Swanson AE. Removing the mandibular third molar: neurosensory deficits and consequent litigation. J Can Dent Assoc 1989;55(5):383–6.
5. Sjostron O. No-fault-compensation, patient guarantee, peer review committees: the Swedish experience. Int Dent J 1990;40:103–8.
6. Freire MO, Van Dyke TE. Natural resolution of inflammation. Periodontol 2000. 2013;63:149–164.
7. Mei CC, Lee FY, Yeh HC. Assessment of pain perception following periodontal and implant surgeries. J Clin Periodontol. 2016;43:1151–1159.
8. Lodi G, Figini L, Sardella A, Carrassi A, Del Fabbro M, Furness S. Antibiotics to prevent complications following tooth extractions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11:CD003811.

9. Scully C. Medical problems in dentistry. 6th ed. London: Churchill Livingstone, 2010.
10. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Antimicrobial prophylaxis against infective endocarditis. London: NICE, 2008.
11. North West Medicines Information Centre. Surgical management of the primary care dental patient on antiplatelet medication. Liverpool: North West Medicines Information Centre, 2009.
12. Griffiths M, Scully C. New anticoagulants. Br Dent J 2012; 213: 96.
13. Kalantari F, Saeidimehr S, Rahim F. Medical specialties at high risk of litigation in Iran, 1991e2011: a systematic review of 24 studies. J Med Sci 2012;12:248e55.
14. Conrad DA, Whitney C, Milgrom P, O_Hara D, Ammons R, Fiset W, Vesneski W. Malpractice premiums in 1992: results of a national survey of dentists. J Am Dental Assoc 1995;126:1045–56.
15. Keeling SD, Martin CS. The malpractice morass and practice activities of orthodontists. Am J Orthodont Dentofacial Orthopedic 1990;97:229–39.
16. Hapcook CP Sr. Dental malpractice claims: percentages and procedures. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137:1444–5.
17. Clark N, Paquin N, Nevin J. Dental malpractice baseline data from insurance claims closed in 1970, with analyses. Public Health Report 1984; 99: 87–93.
18. Griangrego E, Johnson B, Dwyer B. Emphasis: the liability issue protecting the profession. J Am Dent Assoc 1986;112:607.
19. Medical malpractice, from world of health, ; 2007 accessed 09.07.07.
20. Al Ammar W, Guile E. A one-year survey of dental malpractice claims in Riyadh. Saudi Dental J 2000;12:95–9.
21. The statistics on dental malpractice claims. Am Dent Assoc. ; 2007 accessed 09.07.07.
22. Mellor AC, Milgrom P. Prevalence of complaints by patients against general dental practitioners in greater Manchester. Br Dent J 1995;178:249–53.
23. Pogrel MA, Thamby S. The aetiology of altered sensation in the inferior alveolar, lingual, and mental nerves as a result of dental treatment. J Calif Dent Assoc 1999: 27: 531–538.
24. B. G. Tay, J. R. Zuniga: Clinical characteristics of trigeminal nerve injury referrals to a university centre. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2007; 36: 922–927.
25. Kiani, M.; Sheikhazadi, A. A five-year survey for dental malpractice claims in Tehran, Iran. J. Forensic Leg. Med. 2009, 16, 76–82.
26. Rene N, Owall B. Malpractice reports in prosthodontics in Sweden. Swed Dent J 1991;15:205e17.
27. Lopez-Nicolas M, Falcón M, Perez-Carceles MD, Osuna E, Luna A. The role of a professional dental organization in the resolution of malpractice claims the Professional dentist college in the region of Murcia (Spain). Med Law 2011;30:55e63.
28. Poloson GJ, Gee NJ. The essentials of forensic medicine. 5th ed. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1985. p. 105e15.
29. Robert D, Dripps Leroy D, Vandam James E, Eckenhoff F. Introduction to anesthesia, the principles of safe practice. 6th ed. Philadelphia and London: W.B. Saunders, Elsevier; 1982.p. 124e8 Chapter 6.
30. Abasi M. Collection of medical law. Tehran, Iran: Juridical Press; 1996.
31. Ozdemir MH, Saracoglu A, Ozdemir AU, Ergonen AT. Dental malpractice cases in Turkey during 1991e2000. J Clin Forensic Med 2005;12:137e42.
32. MacFarlane GD, Herzberg MC, Wolff LF, Hardie NA. Refractory periodontitis associated with abnormal polymorphonuclear leukocyte phagocytosis and cigarette smoking. J Periodontol. 1992;63:908–913.
33. Zambon JJ, Grossi SG, Machtei EE, Ho AW, Dunford R, Genco RJ. Cigarette smoking increases the risk for subgingival infection with periodontal pathogens. J Periodontol. 1996;67(Suppl. 10S):1050–1054.