{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03357004519044545, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018076178179470628, 'mean_word_length': 5.175298804780876, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Medicolegal aspects of iatrogenic root perforations].

AIM
To retrospectively analyze the medico-legal aspects of iatrogenic root perforations (IRP) that occurred during endodontic treatments.


METHODOLOGY
A comprehensive search in a professional liability insurance database was conducted to retrospectively identify cases of IRP following root canal treatments (RCTs). The complaints were categorized as either financial risk bearing or financial nonrisk bearing, and related demographic and endodontic variables were analyzed.


RESULTS
One hundred and twenty cases of patients with IRP were identified. Twenty six cases (22%) were elective RCTs, and 94 cases (78%) were endodontic treatments performed due to pathologic processes (p < 0.05). Sixty cases (50%) were identified in mandibular molars, significantly more than other tooth locations (P < 0.05). In 102 cases (85%) the outcome was extraction, and in 18 cases (15%) the outcome was an additional treatment (p < 0.05). For both the cases with outcome of extraction and for the cases with an additional treatment, the complaints were judged as financial risk bearing in 95% of the cases.


CONCLUSIONS
latrogenic root perforation is a complication of root canal treatment and may result in tooth extraction and in legal actions against the treating practitioner. Mandibular molars are more prone to medico-legal claims related to root perforations. The patient should be informed of the risks during RCT and should get information on alternative treatments and their risks and prognosis