The Indian dental litigation landscape: An analysis of judgments on dental negligence claims in Indian Consumer Redressal Forums.

INTRODUCTION: Dental malpractice/negligence litigations against dentists in India is not widely studied. The aim of this study is to report the Indian dentist related litigation landscape in consumer redressal forum (CRF) and to understand more of the nature of the same. MATERIAL AND METHOD: 111 cases of judgments of dental malpractice in Indian CRF were collected. Useful information was extracted, reported in a grid and statistically analyzed. Data was compared by claim, specialty, treatment offered, days lapsed and compensation awarded. P ≤ 0.05 was taken as statistically significant. RESULTS: In all, 44 (39.63%) dentists were found guilty. Thirty dentists had produced at least one evidence in their favor. Among them, 23 outcomes were in dentist's favor.(P = 0.02) The mean wait for final judgment was 1945 ±â€¯1286(193-6762) days. The mean compensation claimed was INR 577287 ±â€¯905898. Presence of evidence (dentists/patients) had an impact on the days to reach a judgment as well as compensation. CONCLUSION: Indian dental litigation landscape CRF has been described for the first time. We identified that CRF litigation of dental malpractice are few, as compared to number of procedures performed in India. Oral surgical procedures were often involved and 40% of instances, dentists were guilty and mean compensation awarded was INR 103998 ±â€¯158976.

Fluoride Rinses, Gels and Foams: An Update of Controlled Clinical Trials.

AIM: The aim of this conference paper was to systematically review the quality of evidence and summarize the findings of clinical trials published after 2002 using fluoride mouth rinses, fluoride gels or foams for the prevention of dental caries. METHODS: Relevant papers were selected after an electronic search for literature published in English between 2003 and 2014. The included papers were assessed for their risk of bias and the results were narratively synthesized due to study heterogeneity. The quality of evidence was expressed according to GRADE. RESULTS: A total of 19 papers were included (6 on fluoride mouth rinse, 10 on fluoride gel and 3 on fluoride foam); 6 had a low risk of bias while 2 had a moderate risk. All fluoride measures appeared to be beneficial in preventing crown caries and reversing root caries, but the quality of evidence was graded as low for fluoride mouth rinse, moderate for fluoride gel and very low for acidulated fluoride foam. No conclusions could be drawn on the cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: This review, covering the recent decade, has further substantiated the evidence for a caries-preventive effect of fluoride mouth rinse, fluoride gel and foam, previously established in systematic reviews. The lack of clinical trials free from bias is, however, still a concern, especially for fluoride mouth rinses and fluoride foam. There is also a scientific knowledge gap on the benefit and optimal use of these fluoride supplements in combination with daily tooth brushing with fluoride toothpaste.