Evaluation of the legal measures taken by dentists in the endodontic treatments in Turkey; A questionnaire survey

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the legal measures taken by Turkish dentists in endodontic treatments. Methods: The web-based questionnaire form consisted of eleven questions was send to the members of the Turkish Dental Association by email from February to March 2021 and 382 dentists filled the form. The participants were asked about their properties such as gender, years of experience, specialty, and their methods of clinic applications in endodontic procedures such as rubber-dam application, methods of informing the patients, storing/sharing the diagnostic documents, and allowing patients to have a companion. Results: All the participants informed their patients about the endodontic treatment but only the half of participants received written informed consent. When compared with other dental services, endodontics ranked 3rd according to the probability of having legal problems with the patient. Four-fifths of the participants reported using rubber dam in endodontic treatments. Almost one out of ten people did not archive the treatment documents. Conclusions: The results of this study should alert Turkish dentists to take special care to avoid facing claims and lawsuits about their legal liability.

Keywords

• dentist
• endodontic treatment
• legal measures
• patient rights

References

1. 1. Kiani M, Sheikhazadi A. A five-year survey for dental malpractice claims in Tehran, Iran. J Forensic Leg Med 2009; 16(2): 76-82.
2. 2. Ozdemir MH, Saracoglu A, Ozdemir, et al. Dental malpractice cases in Turkey during 1991–2000. J Clin Forensic Med 2005; 12: 137–42.
3. 3. Nalliah RP. Trends in US malpractice payments in dentistry compared to other health professions–dentistry payments increase, others fall. Br Dent J, 2017; 222(1): 36-40.
4. 4. ADA Statement on dental patients right and responsibilities. Available from; https://www.ada.org/~/media/ADA/About%20the%20ADA/Files/statements_ethics_patient_rights.pdf
5. 5. Cohen S, Schwartz S Endodontic complications and the law. J Endod 1987; 13(4): 191-97.
6. 6. Dhawan R, Dhawan S. Legal aspects in dentistry. J Indian soc Periodontol 2010; 14(1), 81.
7. 7. Ramugade MM, Sagale AA. A review of medicolegal considerations of endodontic practice for general dental practitioners. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2018; 8(4): 283.
8. 8. Emek BG, Keçeci AD. Endodontide Etik Sorunlar ve Malpraktis. SDU Journal of Health Science 2019; 10(3): 327-32.

9. 9. Alrahabi M, Zafar MS, Adanir N. Aspects of clinical malpractice in endodontics. Eur J Dent 2019; 13(3), 450.
10. 10. Suresh KP, Chandrashekara S. Sample size estimation and power analysis for clinical research studies. J Hum Reprod Sci 2012; 5(1): 7.
11. 11. "Patient rights regulation" published in Official Gazette dated 01/08/1998 and numbered 23420. Accessed at 25 April 2021. Available from; https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/File/GeneratePdf?mevzuatNo=4847&mevzuatTur=KurumVeKurulusYonetmeligi&mevzuatTertip=5
12. 12. Saxton JW, King DK. American Association of Endodontics, Practice management, January 2016. Available from: https://www.aae.org/specialty/communique/how-to-avoid-a-lawsuit/
13. 13. Keeling SD, Martin CS. The malpractice morass and practice activities of orthodontists. Am J Orthodont Dentofacial Orthopedic 1990; 97: 229–39.
14. 14. Zinman E. Dental and legal considerations in periodontal therapy. Periodontology 2000 2001; 25: 114–130.
15. 15. Sjostron O. No-fault-compensation, patient guarantee, peer review committees: the Swedish experience. Int Dent J 1990; 40: 103–8.
16. 16. Rene N, Owall B. Malpractice reports in prosthodontics in Sweden. Swed Dent J 1991; 15: 205–217.
17. 17. Milgrom P, Fiset L, Whitney C, et al. Malpractice claims during 1988–1992. A national survey of dentists. J Am Dent Assoc 1994; 125: 462–9.
18. 18. AAE Position statement- Dental dam. Accessed at 24 February. Available from: https://www.aae.org/specialty/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/06/dentaldamstatement.pdf
19. 19. Barnes JJ, PatelmS. Contemporary endodontics–part 1. Br Dent J 2011; 211(10): 463-8.
20. 20. Susini G, Pommel L, Camps J. Accidental ingestion and aspiration of root canal instruments and other dental foreign bodies in a French population. Int Endod J 2007; 40: 585–9.
21. 21. Kuo S, Chen Y. Accidental swallowing of an endodontic file. Int Endod J 2008; 41: 617–22.
22. 22. Yadav RK, Yadav HK, Chandra A, Yadav S, Verma P, Shakya VK. Accidental aspiration/ingestion of foreign bodies in dentistry: A clinical and legal perspective. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2015; 6(2): 144.
23. 23. Whitworth J, Seccombe G, Shoker K, Steele J. Use of rubber dam and irrigant selection in UK general dental practice. Int Endod J 2000; 33: 435–41.
24. 24. Madarati AA. Why dentists don’t use rubber dam during endodontics and how to promote its usage? BMC Oral Health 2016; 16: 24.
25. 25. Madarati A, Abid S, Tamimi F et al. Dental-dam for infection control and patient safety during clinical endodontic treatment: preferences of dental patients. Int J Env Res Pub He 2018; 15(9), 2012.