Professional Responsibility and Nerve Damage: Court Case Related to Surgical Grafts

Castro, Talita Lima de; Fernandes, Mário Marques; Rosa, Renato de Oliveira; Júnior, Eduardo Daruge

doi:10.15603/2176-1000/odonto.v21n41-42p71-75

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Informing it previously avoids complaints and malpractice lawsuits during treatment. Patient should be notified of the inherent risks and possibilities of failure, and post-operative instructions should be revised in every case, as a means of avoiding such consequences, keeping physical records of such notifications [4].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such injuries might result in malpractice lawsuits against the dental surgeon, since the responsibility of the dentist during dental services is associated to several obligations at all stages of treatment, including correct indication of the surgery, treatment plan, patient orientation and professional conduct during treatment and after the occurrence of any complication [4,15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How to avoid legal problems in cases of nerve injury due to dental implants

Castro¹,

Fernandes²,

Rosa³

et al. 2016

RSBO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the surgical and implant procedures, there is considerable risk of injury to oral nerves. The dental surgeon must recognize clinical signs of the main nerve lesions that might occur following surgical or dental implant procedures, and take the necessary precautions to prevent them. Objective: The aim of this manuscript was to describe a legal case of clinical paresthesia due to alveolar nerve compression following an implant placement, revising the types of nerve lesions of surgical-implant etiology, and advise the dental professional against clinical and legal flaws. Case report: In this case, a female patient underwent oral rehabilitation, including the placement of an osseointegrated implant in the lower left first molar region. After the setting of the device, the patient presented paresthesia on the left mentonian region and buccal mucosa of elements 34, 33 and 32 and, dissatisfied with the situation, she appealed to justice and requested the responsibility of the professional. Conclusion: It is important to discuss that prevention continues to be the key issue when it comes to avoiding clinical, ethical or legal repercussions. Practicing adequate diagnosis and treatment planning and conducting the necessary complementary exams are essential, allied to previously patients’ signed consent.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%