Blog

• Mark Jackson, RDT

  Mark co-founded the laboratory in 1981. A member of the ICOI and Cal-Lab, he serves on the Board of directors of the National Association of Dental Laboratories, writes a monthly column for the Journal of Dental Technology and has been on the faculty of NADLU since 2004. He has lectured throughout the US, as well as in Europe and Africa. Mark is active in the community, and in humanitarian and conservation affairs as a board member of Safari Club International. He lives in Rancho Cucamonga with his wife and children.

• Subjects

  • Industry Commentary

• Tags

  3D Imaging Add new tag ArtGlass BruxZir CAD/CAM Captek Cone Beam CT Counterfeit DLOAC Empress2 experimenting on patients FDA Green State Implant Planning Implant Surgical Guides IPS e.Max Lava MedWatch Modifying product liability substitution Zirconia Zirconia Crowns

California jury awards a patient $1.7 million after they determine that 3D imaging could have avoided a misplaced dental implant and permanent facial pain.

As the cost of 3D imaging comes down, and as surgical planning and guides get less expensive, it’s becoming harder to justify NOT using one. Cases like this one are pointing in that direction.

In this case, the verdict hinged on the interpretation of informed consent and standard of care, according to Edwin Zinman, D.D.S., ID., in a lecture at the 2009 California Dental Association (CDA) fall meeting.

“Informed consent is meant to be a shield, not a sword,” Dr. Zinman said. “It is all about protecting the best interest of the patient” — and, in the process, protecting the dentist’s best interests as well.

How one applies informed consent in both a clinical and legal setting involves determining whether the standard of care is being met, he noted. In the California case, for example, the implant had been placed so deeply it went into the inferior alveolar nerve canal and also exited out the other side, resulting in permanent pain for the patient (Journal of the History, of Dentistry, Winter 2007, Vol. 55:3, pp. 134-138). The jury concluded that correctly interpreted 3D imaging would have avoided the injury and that the dentist should have used 3D imaging to minimize the risk of over drilling.

Posted on November 19th 2009f 2009 at 09:59am in Industry Commentary by mark