[Careless treatment?].
Comments are given on a recent judgement of a medical disciplinary tribunal in The Netherlands. It is stated that the interexaminer variation in the interpretation of periapical radiolucencies is large. Therefore the problem arises if a dentist may be blamed for not detecting a periapical radiolucency on a dental radiograph. A demand for systematic radiographic examination of all teeth with large fillings is also questionable, especially during periodic examinations of the dentition in patients without pain or symptoms of inflammation.
A S
AS
Duinkerke
D003937:Diagnosis, Differential; D006801:Humans; D008318:Malpractice / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D009426:Netherlands; D015588:Observer Variation; D010483:Periapical Diseases / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D010486:Periapical Tissue / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D011861:Radiography, Dental / Q000592:standards*