Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 399–404 | Cite as

Did malpractice claims for failed dental implants decrease after introduction of CBCT in Finland?

  • Magdalena Marinescu Gava
  • Anni SuomalainenEmail author
  • Tapio Vehmas
  • Irja Ventä
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

There may be an association between the increasing availability of CBCT equipment and the reducing frequency of compensable malpractice claims.

Clinical relevance

It is possible that the use of CBCT may result in fewer compensable malpractice claims.

Keywords

Cone beam computed tomography Dental implant Injury Insurance Radiology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the FPIC, KELA, THL, and STUK for providing the data in this study.

Funding

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.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Martini PT, Andreis IA (1998) A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 8:1558–1564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arai Y, Tammisalo E, Iwai K, Hashimoto K, Shinoda K (1999) Development of a compact computed tomographic apparatus for dental use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 28:245–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Suomalainen A, Pakbaznejad Esmaeili E, Robinson S (2015) Dentomaxillofacial imaging with panoramic views and cone beam CT. Insights Into Imaging 6:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacobs R, Quirynen M (2014) Dental cone beam computed tomography: justification for use in planning oral implant placement. Periodontol 2000 66:203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Suomalainen A, Apajalahti S, Vehmas T, Ventä I (2013) Availability of CBCT and iatrogenic alveolar nerve injuries. Acta Odontol Scand 71:151–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 7.
    Benavides E, Rios HF, Ganz SD, An CH, Resnik R, Reardon GT (2012) Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists consensus report. Implant Dent 21:78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 9.
    Misch K, Wang HL (2008) Implant surgery complications: etiology and treatment. Implant Dent 17:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 11.
    Ventä I, Lindqvist C, Ylipaavalniemi P (1998) Malpractice claims for permanent nerve injuries related to third molar removals. Acta Odontol Scand 56:193–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karhunen S, Virtanen JI (2016) Dental treatment injuries in the Finnish Patient Insurance Centre in 2000–2011. Acta Odontol Scand 74:236–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bjørndal L, Reit C (2008) Endodontic malpractice claims in Denmark 1995–2004. Int Endod J 41:1059–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pinchi V, Pradella F, Gasparetto L, Norelli GA (2013) Trends in endodontic claims in Italy. Int Dent J 63:43–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. 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
  17. 17.
    Tolstunov L (2007) Implant zones of the jaws: implant location and related success rate. J Oral Implantol 33:211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Geckili O, Bilhan H, Geckili E, Cilingir A, Mumcu E, Bural C (2014) Evaluation of possible prognostic factors for the success, survival, and failure of dental implants. Implant Dent 23:44–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. 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
  21. 21.
    Suomalainen AK, Salo A, Robinson S, Peltola JS (2007) The 3 DX multi image micro-CT device in clinical dental practice. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 36:80–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.HUS Radiology (Medical Imaging Center)HelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Department of Occupational MedicineFinnish Institute of Occupational HealthHelsinkiFinland
  4. 4.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Diseases, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations