Two decades of dental malpractice litigations in Türkiye: a retrospective matched cohort study analyzing legal and clinical outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This 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. METHODS: A 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. RESULT: The 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%). CONCLUSION: This 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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".