Did malpractice claims for failed dental implants decrease after introduction of CBCT in Finland?
- 104 Downloads
To examine the role of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in preventing failures in implant treatment. We hypothesize that the number of malpractice claims related to dental implant treatment would decrease after the first CBCT device came available in 2002 in Finland.
Material and methods
Data concerning malpractice claims related to dental implant treatment during the years 1997–2011 were collected from the Finnish Patient Insurance Centre (N = 330 subjects). We selected the cases that might have benefitted from the use of CBCT examination. These cases (n = 131) led to financial compensation due to permanent inferior alveolar nerve injury, improper implant position, or insufficient amount of bone for the implant. The annual total number of inserted dental implants, CBCT devices, and CBCT examinations in Finland were drawn from the national registers and used to estimate the impact of CBCT in preventing treatment failures.
The most common reason for all failures (n = 268 implants) was an improper implant position (46.3%). The most common area of malpractices was upper front teeth (34%). We have noticed a fall in the rate of compensable malpractice cases concerning implant failure, simultaneously with CBCT technology emerging on the market.
There may be an association between the increasing availability of CBCT equipment and the reducing frequency of compensable malpractice claims.
It is possible that the use of CBCT may result in fewer compensable malpractice claims.
KeywordsCone beam computed tomography Dental implant Injury Insurance Radiology
We gratefully acknowledge the FPIC, KELA, THL, and STUK for providing the data in this study.
This work was supported by the Finnish Association of Women Dentists (A.S.) and Radiological Society of Finland (A.S.).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interests
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- 6.Harris D, Horner K, Gröndahl K, Jacobs R, Helmrot E, Benic GI, Bornstein MM, Dawood A, Quirynen M (2012) E.A.O. guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry 2011. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration at the Medical Insights Imaging University of Warsaw. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:1243–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.EC, European Commission. Radiation protection no. 172 (2012) Evidence based guidelines on cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2012. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/publications-medical-exposure RP-172. Accessed 09 Mar 2018
- 10.McDermott NE, Chuang SK, Woo VV, Dodson TB (2003) Complications of dental implants: identification, frequency, and associated risk factors. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18:848–855Google Scholar
- 15.Virtanen J, Swanljung O, Pöyry S, Lilja V, Palonen R (2010) The dental injuries in the Finnish Patient Insurance Center in 2000–2010. J Soc Med 47:244–249Google Scholar
- 16.Haas R, Mensdorf-Poully N, Mailath G, Watzek G (1996) Survival of 1,920 IMZ implants followed for up to 100 months. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 11:581–588Google Scholar
- 19.National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) (2010) Hammasimplantit Suomessa 2008 (Dental Implants in Finland 2008). https://www.julkari.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/79934/Tr09_10.pdf?sequence=1 (in Finnish). Accessed 09 Mar 2018
- 20.National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) (2017) Implantit (Implants). https://www.thl.fi/fi/tilastot/tietoa-tilastoista/laatuselosteet/hammasimplantit (in Finnish). Accessed 29 Dec 2017
- 22.Guyatt GH, Tugwell PX, Feeny DH, Haynes RB, Drummond M (1986) A framework for clinical evaluation of diagnostic technologies. CMAJ 134(6):587–594Google Scholar