Background/purpose: Little is known regarding the outcomes and distinguishing characteristics of lawsuits related to endodontic procedures. This study used a verdict-based data from United States of America to analyze the factors associated with endodontic malpractice lawsuits and mitigate the risk of litigation.
Materials and methods: The LexisNexis legal database was used to search for endodontic malpractice cases from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2021 using the terms "medical malpractice" and (I) "endodontist" (II) "endodontics" (III) "root canal" (IV) "dental pulp." Each case was reviewed for reported medical characteristics and litigation outcomes.
Results: A total of 650 cases were initially identified, and 97 cases were included in the final analysis. Eighty-four (86.6%) of the 97 defendants were general practitioners; 42 cases favored the plaintiff, 53 (54.6%) favored the defendant, 1 was partial win/loss, and 1 was settled. The annual case mean was 4.41 ± 2.17 (Mean ± SD). The major allegations favored for the patients involving paresthesia, root perforation, rubber dam not use, wrong tooth therapy, and infections. Plaintiffs who claimed with post-procedural reasons had a significantly higher winning rate than non-post-procedural reasons (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: In the present study, 54.6% of endodontic litigation favored the dentists in the US. The authors recommend that general practitioners refer complicated cases to endodontists and treat carefully to avoid paresthesia, canal perforation and infections. Clinicians should always diagnose and treat correctly, shared decision making with the patient, use rubber dam routinely, and timely management to prevent malpractice claims.
Keywords: Endodontics; Informed consent; Lawsuit; Litigation; Malpractice.
© 2022 Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.