OIL Gdansk complications after dental treatment on vocalise

OIL Gdansk: complications after dental treatment on the case floor

OIL Gdansk: complications after dental treatment on the vignette

The Medical Court of the OIL in Gdansk recently considered two cases involving complications after dental treatment of teeth 16 and 36. In both cases, oversight on the part of dentists was found.

The first case involved a dentist who extracted a patient’s tooth 16 due to pulp gangrene and significant destruction of the crown’s cuticle. After the procedure, the patient complained of pain, but the dentist believed that the ailment would pass. After a few months, the man went to another doctor, who performed an X-ray on him – it showed the roots of tooth 16 left after extraction. The case went to the Regional Ombudsman for Professional Responsibility, and the latter consulted an expert – he concluded that the failure to inspect the alveolus, the failure to take an X-ray and the failure to respond to the patient’s complaints long after the procedure was a malpractice.

The case went to the District Medical Court, which found the accused doctor “guilty of committing the act of performing tooth extraction procedure 16. in the patient, by leaving the roots of this tooth, without informing the victim of this fact and without taking any steps to remove these roots, which undermined confidence in the medical profession, in violation of Art. 4 of the Law on the Profession of Physician and Dentist and Art. 8 of the Code of Medical Ethics” – we read on the website of the OIL in Gdansk.

Improperly performed endodontic treatment

The second case considered by the Medical Court of the OIL in Gdansk concerned endodontic treatment of tooth 36 in a patient who had been denied treatment by several other dentists, referring him to an endodontic specialist with a microscope. The dentist who undertook the treatment did not have a microscope at his disposal, and used an endometer to measure the length of the canals.

After filling the canals, an X-ray was taken, which showed underfilling of the canals in ½ of their length. The doctor did not inform the patient about this. After more than a year, from an X-ray taken at another office, the patient learned that his tooth 36. is incorrectly filled – reports the Gdansk OIL.

The case also went to the Ombudsman for Professional Responsibility, who sought an expert opinion. This one discussed each diagnostic step, noting that he undertook the treatment without a microscope and did not take an X-ray before treatment.

The District Medical Court found the defendant guilty of professional misconduct in that he “did not show due diligence in the diagnostic and therapeutic procedure during the treatment of tooth 36., resulting in improper root canal filling and is a violation of Art. 4 of the Law on Physician and Dentist Professions and Art. 8 of the Code of Medical Ethics” – reads the announcement.

The court of first instance imposed a punishment of admonition on the defendant, which was upheld by the Supreme Medical Court.

What problems do dentists report to lawyers with? – If we talk about patient complaints, we notice that more and more patients are coming forward not only with objections to the treatment itself, but to the respect of patient rights – says in an interview with Dentonet mec. Paul Strzelec, stressing the role of medical records in proving a point in the event of a lawsuit.

Related Posts

Poles in fight against pandemic rate medics well

Poles in fight against pandemic rate medics well

Orthognathic treatment after removal of extensive osteosarcoma of the mandible

Orthognathic treatment after removal of extensive mandibular osteoma

Oral abscess as a result of implant displacement

Oral abscess as a result of implant displacement

Scotland soon to have free treatment in NHS surgeries

Scotland: free treatment in NHS surgeries coming soon?

Dental Review of the Week – Part 50

Dental review of the week – part 50

Dental review of the week – part 52

Dental review of the week – part 52

Leave a Reply