International orthodontics · 2026
Professional malpractice claims in orthodontics: A scoping review.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Varvara Giuseppe, Burdo Pierangelo, Gerardi Davide, Bernardi Sara, Pasqualone Roberta, Perinetti Giuseppe
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Malpractice claims in orthodontics are a growing concern, with rising patient expectations and heightening legal awareness. Identifying the underlying causes of such claims is crucial for improving risk management and reducing liability. This scoping review aimed to map the available evidence about the causes of malpractice claims in orthodontics.
METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed articles from the last 10years reporting on malpractice claims in orthodontics. This review followed the PRISMA for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines.
RESULTS: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. The most recurrent drivers of litigation involved periodontal complications, aesthetic dissatisfaction, and failures in documentation or informed consent. Additional contributors included root resorption, tooth injury, ineffective communication, and inadequate professional training, including cases managed by general dentists without orthodontic expertise. Emerging modalities such as aligner-based treatments introduced distinct medico-legal issues, particularly unrealistic aesthetic expectations and reliance on digitally guided workflows.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, evidence suggests that both clinical complications and medico-legal shortcomings contribute to orthodontic litigation, with communication, documentation, and informed consent playing a central role in the legal evaluation of malpractice claims. DOI REGISTRATION LINK ON OSF: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FUHS7 (accessed on September 14, 2025).
METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed articles from the last 10years reporting on malpractice claims in orthodontics. This review followed the PRISMA for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines.
RESULTS: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. The most recurrent drivers of litigation involved periodontal complications, aesthetic dissatisfaction, and failures in documentation or informed consent. Additional contributors included root resorption, tooth injury, ineffective communication, and inadequate professional training, including cases managed by general dentists without orthodontic expertise. Emerging modalities such as aligner-based treatments introduced distinct medico-legal issues, particularly unrealistic aesthetic expectations and reliance on digitally guided workflows.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, evidence suggests that both clinical complications and medico-legal shortcomings contribute to orthodontic litigation, with communication, documentation, and informed consent playing a central role in the legal evaluation of malpractice claims. DOI REGISTRATION LINK ON OSF: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FUHS7 (accessed on September 14, 2025).