Frequency and type of tooth extractions in adults vary by age: register-based nationwide observations in 2012-2017.

OBJECTIVE: This register-based study assessed the frequency of and age-specified variation in tooth extractions in adults visiting private dentists in Finland in 2012-2017. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective study design was used on the register-based data of private sector services. Data of the entire 6 years, 2012-2017, included records of a total of 6,252,039 patients. From among these, further detailed information was gathered in 2012 for 1,058,305 patients, and in 2017, for 985,043 patients. For each 6 years, the data were aggregated into patients' 5-year age groups that were observation elements. Proportions of patients undergoing oral surgical treatments were compared during the 6 years 2012-2017, and details of tooth extractions in 2012 and 2017. Linear regression modelling was used to analyse thinkable age- and year-related inclinations in oral surgical treatments. RESULTS: Across the 6 years, a total of 848,362 patients (13.6%) underwent oral surgical treatments, and the rates varied by year 13.3-13.8%. By age group, the smallest rates (9-10%) were for 35-49-year-olds and greatest (20-22%) for those aged below 25 or over 84. The rates in same-age groups were stable. In 2012 and 2017, mean numbers of tooth extractions per patient by year were 0.17 and 0.18, and per patients undergoing oral surgical treatments, 1.29 and 1.27, respectively. Proportion of patients undergoing oral surgical treatments and mean number of tooth extractions per patient was greater in younger and older age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tooth extractions in adults are age-dependent and age-specified differences remain stable across the years.

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

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.

Malpractice claims related to tooth extractions.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze malpractice claims related to tooth extractions in order to identify areas requiring emphasis and eventually to reduce the number of complications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We compiled a file of all malpractice claims related to tooth extractions (EBA code) between 1997 and 2010 from the Finnish Patient Insurance Centre. We then examined the data with respect to date, tooth, surgery, injury diagnosis, and the authority's decision on the case. RESULTS: The material consisted of 852 completed patient cases. Most of the teeth were third molars (66 %), followed by first molars (8 %), and second molars (7 %). The majority of claims were related to operative extraction (71 %) followed by ordinary extraction (17 %) and apicoectomy of a single-rooted tooth (7 %) or multi-rooted tooth (2 %). The most common diagnosis was injury of the lingual or inferior alveolar nerve. According to the authority's decision, the patient received compensation more often in cases involving a third molar than other teeth (56 vs. 46 %, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The removal of a mandibular third molar was the basis for the majority of malpractice claims. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: To reduce the numbers of lingual and inferior alveolar nerve injuries, the removal of mandibular third molars necessitates recent and high-quality panoramic radiograph, preoperative assessment of the difficulty of removal, and consciousness of the variable anatomical course of the lingual nerve.