Figure 1 Compensated and uncompensated endodontic malpractice claims (n=1271) by year.

Characteristics of cases

In 2002-2006
(n=668)

In 2011-2013
(n=603)

p value

Patients
Age (years): Mean (SD)
Range; Median
Women (%)
Men (%)


44.5 (13.6)
14-85; 43.5
71
29


45.0 (15.1)
8-85; 45.9
71
29


0.57

0.86

Service sector  
Private (%)
Public (%)


56
44


51
49


0.06

Dentists
Age (years): Mean (SD)
Range; Median
Data missing
Women (%)
Men (%)

General practitioner (%)
Specialist (%)


44.2 (9.5)
24-67; 43.9
n=7
62
38

93
7


46.9 (10.8)
24-75; 47.6
n=44
61
39

94
6

 <0.001


  0.80


   0.76

Type of tooth     
Anterior (%)
Premolar (%)
Molar (%)


11
24
65


12
23
65


   0.78

Table1 Characteristics of endodontic malpractice claims in Finland in 2002-2006 and 2011-2013; p values refer to differences between the time periods.

Aspects of process and
Type of injury

In 2002-2006
(n=668)
%

In 2011-2013
(n=603)
%

p value

Instrumentation
Manual
Engine-driven
Undocumented

 


76
17
7


45
45
10


<0.001

Preoperative radiograph
Taken
Not taken


44
56


25
75


<0.001

Apex location by
Working length radiograph
Electronic device
Undocumented

 


51
7
42


34
35
31


<0.001

Perforation
None
In root canal
In pulp chamber


79
8
13


77
13
10


0.016

Broken instrument    
None
Manual
Engine-driven


77
14
9


74
16
10


  0.36




























Table2 Process-related technical aspects and injuries in endodontic malpractice cases in Finland in 2002-2006 and in 2011-2013; p values refer to differences between the time periods.

Type and occurrence
of injury

 

In 2002-2006
(n=668)

 

In 2011-2013
(n=603)

Difference by period

 

C (%)

NC (%)

1p value

 

C (%)

NC (%)

1p value

2p value

Perforation                    
Occurred                 
None

 

 

76
41

 

24
59

 

<0.001

 

 

78
34

 

22
66

 

<0.001

 

<0.001

Broken instrument        
Occurred
None

 

 

47
49

 

53
51

 

  0.78

 

 

32
49

 

68
51

 

<0.001

 

<0.001

Table3 Decisions of indemnity for claims related to endodontic malpractice by type of injury in Finland in 2002-2006 and in 2011-2013; C = Compensation, NC = No compensation; 1p values refer to differences within each time period, and 2p values, between the time periods.

Factors and the
categories compared

In 2002-2006 (n=668)

In 2011-2013 (n=603)

OR

95% CI

OR

95% CI

Service sector
Private  vs. Public (ref.)

 
1.7


1.2, 2.3


1.2


0.9, 1.7

 Dentist’s gender
 Male vs. Female (ref.)


 1.4


1.0, 1.9


1.0


0.7, 1.4

 
Perforation
 Occurred vs. Not (ref.)

 

4.4

 

2.9, 6.8

 

6.6

 

4.3, 10.3

 
Broken instrument
Occurred vs. Not (ref.)

 

1.0

 

0.7, 1.4

 

0.5

 

0.3, 0.7

Table4 Strength of selected factors related to decisions of indemnity for endodontic malpractice claims in Finland in 2002-2006 and in 2011-2013, by means of odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI); for bolded OR values, p<0.05; ref. = reference category.