Skip to main content
Download PDF

Patient safety in orthodontic care: a scoping literature review with proposal for terminology and future research agenda

BMC Oral Health volume 24, Article number: 702 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Knowledge about patient safety in orthodontics is scarce. Lack of standardisation and a common terminology hinders research and limits our understanding of the discipline. This study aims to 1) summarise current knowledge about patient safety incidents (PSI) in orthodontic care by conducting a systematic literature search, 2) propose a new standardisation of PSI terminology and 3) propose a future research agenda on patient safety in the field of orthodontics.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in the main online sources of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and OpenGrey from their inception to 1 July 2023. Inclusion criteria were based on the World Health Organization´s (WHO) research cycle on patient safety. Studies providing information about the cycle’s steps related to orthodontics were included. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two of the authors.

Results

A total of 3,923 articles were retrieved. After review of titles and abstracts, 41 articles were selected for full-text review and 25 articles were eligible for inclusion. Seven provided information on the WHO’s research cycle step 1 (“measuring harm”), twenty-one on “understanding causes” (step 2) and twelve on “identifying solutions” (step 3). No study provided information on Steps 4 and 5 (“evaluating impact” or “translating evidence into safer care”).

Conclusion

Current evidence on patient safety in orthodontics is scarce due to a lack of standardised reporting and probably also under-reporting of PSIs. Current literature on orthodontic patient safety deals primarily with “measuring harms” and “understanding causes of patient safety”, whereas less attention has been devoted to initiatives “identifying solutions”, “evaluating impact” and “translating evidence into safer care”. The present project holds a proposal for a new categorisation, terminology and future research agenda that may serve as a framework to support future research and clinical initiatives to improve patient safety in orthodontic care.

Registration

PROSPERO (CRD42022371982).

Peer Review reports

Introduction

For decades, patient safety has been recognised as a healthcare discipline. However, the awareness-raising publication of “To Err Is Human” by the Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in the US drew considerable attention to this important aspect of healthcare [1, 2]. In this publication, experts estimated that in the US in any given year as many as 98,000 people die from medical errors that occur in hospitals [1]. The definition of patient safety by the World Health Organization (WHO) from 2009 is: “the freedom for a patient from unnecessary harm or potential harm related to healthcare” [2]. Similarly, in their report, Kohn et al. recognised safety as “freedom from accidental injury” [1]. In this context, a patient safety incident (PSI) is an event or circumstance that could have resulted or did result in unnecessary harm to a patient [2].

Patient safety is a crucial aspect of healthcare that seeks to minimise preventable harm, accidents, complications and adverse events (AEs). AEs are defined as injuries resulting from poor management practices that could have been prevented but are not attributed to an underlying disease process [2, 3]. The WHO classifies certain AEs as "never events", which are serious incidents that should not occur given the presence of strong systemic safety measures [4]. Never events can have a profound impact on patients, and their prevention is a key objective of healthcare organisations. In this context, patient safety aims to limit the impact of AEs adverse events and promote the avoidance of preventable harm.

Patient safety is a priority from the patient’s perspective, and for care providers it falls in line with the Hippocratic Oath ("primum non nocere"), which is an important element of modern healthcare. Patient safety initiatives analyse characteristics and features of healthcare systems that may lead to the occurrence of AEs. These features are latent risks that may be of any nature from a soft tissue laceration or a loose wire to inhalation of an orthodontic appliance [5]. Throughout most healthcare treatment courses, multiple latent risks exist and this makes patient safety multifactorial and complex. When an AE occurs, patient safety does not aim to punish but rather to investigate how and why the protective barriers failed [6, 7].

Improving the quality of care is a road that passes through patient safety. Additionally, patient safety has additional psychosocial and financial benefits. Dealing with the consequences of an adverse event has an economic cost to the practitioner, the patient and society. By improving patient safety, dental practitioners increase their quality of care, which is associated with safer and better treatment outcomes [8,9,10]. In addition, it affords increased legal security by minimising the risk of legal claims [6].

Knowledge about patient safety in dental care and orthodontics in particular is scarce. The absence of patient safety guidelines in orthodontics is a major concern. This issue is further complicated by the absence of standardized terminology in the field, challenging the development of consistent safety protocols. Additionally, there is a noticeable lack of research and publications in this area, which hinders progress in developing effective, evidence-based strategies to ensure patient safety in orthodontic care [11]. Therefore, an urgent need exists for studies in the field of orthodontics in particular [2, 3, 12]. Among others, the lack of a common language among orthodontic caregivers ultimately hinders research and limits our understanding of the discipline [13, 14]. The aims of this study were to 1) summarise current knowledge about PSIs in orthodontic care by performing a systematic literature search; 2) propose a new standardisation of PSI terminology; 3) propose a research agenda on patient safety in the field of orthodontics that may serve to further develop and provide direction for future research on the subject.

Materials and methods

Protocol and registration

Prior to the initiation of the project, the study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (reg. no. CRD42022371982). No ethical approval was deemed necessary.

Search strategy

A systematic literature search was performed in the main online sources of MEDLINE (through PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus as well as the System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (Open-Grey) from their inception to 1 July 2023. No language limitation was set in the search, and all types of eligible human studies were included.

The inclusion criteria for articles were based on the WHO research cycle on patient safety [15, 16]. The various steps of the cycle aim to measure harm and identify causes while identifying solutions to improve patient safety. The ultimate goal is to translate evidence into safer care (Fig. 1). Only studies that provided relevant information in at least one of the following categories were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review:

  1. 1.

    Measuring harm: Studies characterising and/or reporting on the occurrence of AEs or orthodontic-related patient harm.

  2. 2.

    Understanding causes: Reports focusing on understanding causes leading to patient harm and AEs from orthodontic care.

  3. 3.

    Identifying solutions: Studies identifying solutions that are effective in reducing the occurrence of AEs and patient harm.

  4. 4.

    Evaluating impact: Studies evaluating the effectiveness of solutions in terms of impact, affordability and acceptability.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The World Health Organization’s research cycle on patient safety consisting of five steps with the main goal of measuring harm and its causes while identifying solutions and their impact. Ultimately, this evidence should lead to safer care with a set of actions and preventable measures

Full size image

Only full-text articles were included. In addition, studies dealing with patient safety from a general dental-care perspective were included only if they were directly relevant to orthodontic care and the WHO research cycle. For example, although studies on oral surgery were excluded, wrong-tooth-extraction studies or articles investigating the light-curing safety on patients were included owing to their relevance to orthodontics.

The following MESH terms were used for the systematic search:

(((orthodontic*) OR (dental)) AND (patient safety)) AND ((((((((((((((((((((((((((harm) OR (risk*)) OR (malpractice)) OR (adverse event*)) OR (adverse effect*)) OR (never event*)) OR (iatrogenic)) OR (damage)) OR (incident*)) OR (accident*)) OR (delay* diagnos*)) OR (misdiagnosis)) OR (complication*)) OR (allerg*)) OR (infection)) OR (failure)) OR (error*)) OR (white spot lesion*)) OR (root resorption)) OR (relapse)) OR (decalcification)) OR (caries)) OR (periodontal disease)) OR (nerve damage)) OR (injury)) OR (temporomandibular joint dysfunction)).

Data extraction

After removal of duplicates, all results returned from the systematic literature search were initially screened by their title to establish their relevance. The second filtering decided relevance for inclusion based on the content of the abstract. Finally, the third filtering level was applied to the main text, and the remaining studies were then included in the review. All screening was performed independently by one of the authors (NF) and was later re-checked by another author (PS). Any disputes in study selection were addressed and resolved through discussion between the reviewing authors. On all included studies the main outcome/result was recorded. This was studies investigating prevalence (“measuring harm”- step 1) or assessing contributing factors (“understanding causes”-step 2). For all studies providing information on the cycle’s step 3 (“identifying solutions”), all recommended solutions to prevent harm were also noted. Due to the nature of the data in the included studies, no risk of bias assessment was possible. For the same reason, no quantitative synthesis and meta-analysis was performed. Based on these findings, the intention to conduct a systematic review was revised to a scoping literature review instead [17].

Results

Study selection

A total of 3,923 studies were identified from the systematic search and imported into Excel (Microsoft®, USA) (PubMed n = 2,049, Web of Science n = 663, Scopus n = 1203 and OpenGrey n = 8). Among the 3,923 articles, 237 were deemed relevant according to the inclusion criteria after screening their titles. Filtering by abstracts, left 41 articles for inclusion after removal of the duplicates. In one case, the full-text of an article was unavailable and it was therefore excluded [18]. Three relevant articles found in the reference lists were also added [4, 14, 19]. Finally, 25 studies were included as they were found to provide information within any of the categories of the WHO’s research cycle on patient safety related to the orthodontic field (flowchart presented in Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

PRISMA flowchart diagram of the systematic literature search and inclusion procedure

Full size image

Study characteristics

Study characteristics are shown in Table 1. Nine of the included papers were retrospective studies of AEs studying: eye wear protection and ocular trauma in orthodontic practice [19], clinical evaluation of a locking orthodontic facebow [20], adverse reactions to dental materials [3], case reports of latex allergy [21], wrong tooth extraction claims [4], dental and orthodontic PSIs in a UK register [7] and a Finnish register [8], adverse reactions to dental devices reported at the US Food and Drug Administration [9] and investigation of monomer release from orthodontic adhesives [22].

Table 1 Included studies with main information and study characteristics (design, country), main outcomes and information provided based on the WHO’s research cycle on patient safety
Full size table

The remaining sixteen studies reported risk assessments of orthodontic procedures or materials. These included safety assessment of dental radiography [23], bonding of brackets under general anaesthesia [24], orthodontic facebows [10], mini-implants [12, 25, 26], soft-tissue lasers in orthodontics [13], effect of orthodontic treatment on patients’ diet [14], eye safety of curing lights [27], safety of metal fixed appliance during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [28], pulp safety of various types of curing lights [29], wrong tooth extraction in orthodontics [30,31,32], orthodontic treatment by identifying orthodontic never events [33] and complications after orthognathic surgery [34]. These studies identified risks in orthodontic procedures or materials and proposed solutions to manage and minimise these risks.

Study results

Measuring harm

Seven of the studies included provided information in the first category of the WHO’s research cycle on patient safety, which is “measuring harm” [4, 7,8,9, 19, 22, 34]. Sims et al. conducted a postal survey on eye protection in the UK and found that ocular injuries were reported in 37.7% of all respondents involving orthodontists, assistants and patients [19]. Peleg et al. conducted a root-cause analysis of wrong-tooth extraction in 54 insurance claims in Israel and reported that in two thirds of all claims an identification error was the cause of the incorrect tooth extraction [4]. Also, a cross-sectional study on PSIs in the UK found that orthodontic PSIs accounted for 8.9% of all reported dental PSIs in the country [7]. Hebballi et al. investigated the frequency and types of AEs associated with dental devices as reported to the Food and Drug Administration and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) in the US [9]. They reported that orthodontic appliances and accessories accounted for 1% of all AEs involving dental devices. In a similar investigation in hospital and private settings in Finland, Hiivala et al. reported that orthodontic PSIs accounted for 3.6% of all dental PSIs [8]. Finally, a multi-centre retrospective review of orthognathic surgeries assessing complications and risk factors studied a population of 674 patients [34]. They reported that adverse events were rare (4.3%) with superficial incisional infection being the most common. They also concluded that the setting, the type of surgery as well as the patients’ ethnicity were identified as risk factors for some types of complications.

Understanding causes of harm & identifying solutions

Twenty-one of the included studies identified the underlying causes of AEs that caused patient harm (WHO’s Category 2 “Understanding the causes”) [3, 4, 7, 10, 12,13,14, 19,20,21, 23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31, 33, 34]. In addition, twelve studies identified possible solutions that may be effective in reducing the occurrence of AEs (WHO’s Cycle Category 3 “Identifying solutions”) [4, 10, 12, 13, 19,20,21, 23,24,25, 31, 32]. These solutions included: health and safety instructions for eye-protection goggles to prevent ocular trauma [19], use of non-latex materials [21], clear instructions with a brief description of the tooth to be extracted addressed to the clinician using two different identification methods to prevent wrong-site extraction and use of a computerised checklist [4, 31, 32], use of facebows with a locking mechanism and self-releasing head strap to prevent injuries from headgear [10, 20], suggestions to improve safety in dental radiography [23], use of rubber dam during bonding of brackets under general anaesthesia [24], recommendations to overcome failures and risks during placement, loading and removal of mini-implants [12, 25] and, finally, instructions for safe use of soft-tissue lasers in orthodontics recommending that the clinician obtained appropriate training and certification, use of proper eye wear by all involved parties, obtaining informed consent and providing proper post-operative instructions [13].

None of the included studies provided information on how to evaluate the impact of such solutions or on how to translate evidence into safer care in terms of affordability and acceptability. Data synthesis and meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the different studies and the nature of the data.

Discussion

Patient safety incidents in orthodontics

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic investigation of patient safety in orthodontics. The lack of evidence in the field manifests in our results. Twenty-five studies were included in this review and these studies were only peripherally related to orthodontics while providing some information based on the WHO’s research cycle. This cycle describes a process to identify solutions for enhancing patient safety and reducing patient harm. It consists of five steps representing the natural process for patient-safety initiatives. It seems that dentistry in general and orthodontics in particular have yet to take even the initial steps of the cycle (steps 1 and 2), which are to measure the harm and understand the causes of harm [16]. This is evident from the results as the included studies were either reviews of risks associated with specific orthodontic procedures (like mini-implant insertion, soft-tissue laser, facebow use, etc.) or retrospective reviews of AEs peripherally related to orthodontics (incidence of ocular trauma, adverse reactions to materials, etc.).

The results of this review document that current evidence relating to orthodontics is scarce. Without a basic understanding of PSIs and harms we cannot begin to understand the causes and identify solutions that will subsequently translate into safer care for our patients [16]. A major limitation to this is a trend towards potential under-reporting of PSIs in our field. In fact, a review of the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) database in the UK revealed that orthodontics is among the lowest reporting specialties along with dental surgery and paediatric dentistry [35]. A contributing factor in this may be the lesser severity of some PSIs in orthodontics, which may be smaller injuries like soft-tissue laceration from loose wires [16]. One way to overcome the underreporting issues may be effective keeping of patient records and clinical notes, which may prove an essential tool in clinical audits and will also underpin the reporting of more AEs [36]. Also, the lack of standardisation in terminology and reporting process of AEs makes it challenging if not impossible to summarise and categorise all PSIs in orthodontics, let alone analyse the data in depth.

Additionally, we hypothesise that an underreporting bias may exist between dental specialities. Dental implants are more expensive and dentists and/or patients may therefore report them more often when asking for replacements [9]. This leads, e.g., to many more reported PSIs for implants than for burs. Finally, another contributing factor in the lack of evidence on patient safety is the overlap found in some areas within dentistry. This makes it more challenging to precisely measure AEs in only one field. A clear example of this is the AE of wrong-tooth extraction for orthodontic reasons, which may fall in both the orthodontic and surgical category.

Standardisation and terminology

The lack of a standardised terminology and reporting of PSIs in orthodontics seems to hinder any effort to summarise and categorise PSIs, which could be a reasonable first research step to enhance our knowledge in this field. For future work in this field, we therefore suggest that PSIs related to orthodontics may be summarised into two main categories; local and systemic. Categorisation with subcategories and examples are shown in Table 2. Terminology according to the WHO is proposed in Table 3.

Table 2 Orthodontic patient safety incidents summarised as the two main categories of local and systemic, with examples. Local patient safety issues (PSIs) are related to harm in the dental (or surrounding) tissues, orofacial function and unwanted tooth movement. Systemic PSIs refer to pain and discomfort, emotional harm or other as part of an orthodontic treatment. Harms related to orthodontic care may fall into more than one of the categories
Full size table
Table 3 Terminology proposed in orthodontic patient safety future research inspired by the WHO’s Conceptual Framework for the International Classification for Patient Safety Final Technical Report
Full size table

Local PSIs refer to any harm on dental tissues (root resorption, white spot lesions, pulp necrosis, caries) and soft tissues. This may be damage to both periodontal and surrounding soft tissues that could have been avoided (gingival recessions, soft tissue lacerations, local allergic reaction/contact dermatitis). In addition, local PSIs include treatment injuries with a negative effect on orofacial function. This may be development of lip catch as a result of orthodontic treatment. Finally, any harm related to any unwanted tooth movement is also included in this category. This may be unwanted tooth movement due to an active retainer.

Systemic PSIs refer to harm at a systemic level. This may be excessive pain and discomfort as a result of the orthodontic treatment due to a defective appliance or even hypersensitivity due to excessive interproximal reduction. In addition, systemic PSIs include potential emotional damage to patients. This may be development of general discomfort/odontophobia/mistrust towards the clinician or the healthcare system or deterioration of the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Systemic PSIs may be a result of delayed treatment initiation due to delayed/inadequate diagnosis. Finally, harm caused by poor cross-infection control, inhalation of orthodontic parts and extraction of a wrong tooth are also considered systemic PSIs.

Future research agenda

A proposal for a future research agenda in orthodontic patient safety is shown in Table 4. The agenda is intended as inspiration to promote future research and development in patient safety in orthodontics. It should not be considered absolute as topics other than those listed may be of interest for future patient safety initiatives. Two main categories of studies are presented in Table 4: Retrospective or prospective studies dealing with patient safety (26).

Table 4 Aspects and examples of future initiatives and research. Orthodontic patient safety research agenda should follow the WHO’s research cycle. The table does not represent all relevant aspects for future research. Rather, it highlights important aspects to elucidate among many other relevant aspects
Full size table

Retrospective studies are reactive in nature and focus on the incidence, characteristics and severity of PSIs using an acknowledged methodology such as journal file audit and root cause analysis (RCA) (26,27). They investigate PSIs that have already occurred with the intention of generating knowledge to promote learning and guidance for future patient safety initiatives. RCA allows us to focus on individual PSIs and investigate, through a comprehensive analysis, all the contributing factors that lead to the occurrence of an AE.

Conversely, prospective studies assess potential risks associated with a treatment, appliance or material. The methodology in these studies is failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) (27,28). This approach is the analysis of a method, treatment, material or procedure by first creating a risk map and then implementing measures to reduce the likelihood or impact of a PSI (27–30).

Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are key factors in the establishment of safer future orthodontic care. Intrinsic motivation is shaped by professional ethics, norms and patient-reported outcomes and expectations [1, 37, 38]. The articles included in our review, however, mainly focused on the extrinsic motivation, which refers to the environment, policies and strategies that we may develop with the ultimate goal of improving patient safety in orthodontics.

In orthodontic patient safety research, a need exists to increase our focus on this aspect and on clinical routines and administrative, organisational and legal contexts. One strategy that may help us move in this direction is to establish excellent records and clinical notes through periodical audits [30]. This will help clinicians and/or patients report more AEs in future. Honest exchange of such information between health professionals is a necessary first step and a founding rock for safer care and further research. To achieve this, it is important to establish a non-blame culture with psychological safety and a feeling of partnership, enthusiasm and commitment to improving patient safety in orthodontics [36].

Research on patient safety is more advanced in other parts of healthcare than orthodontics. Even other fields of dentistry have taken steps in this direction with the creation of checklists, i.e. in endodontics, orofacial function and oral surgery [39,40,41,42,43]. Checklists seem to have a positive effect on patient safety [44,45,46]. Most of the checklists are adaptations of the WHO’s surgical checklist that is now used in a wide range of surgical specialties in medicine [47]. Adjusting this to fit our orthodontic needs and implementing it in daily practice may be an important step towards improving safety in orthodontics [48]. In the past decade, the WHO has published several guidelines and educational curricula to enhance the level of patient safety in healthcare in general [49, 50]. These publications may provide a starting point for the spreading of local patient safety initiatives and the introduction of educational and organisational measures to further patient safety.

Some orthodontic societies seem to have taken steps towards patient safety, however all societies in different countries need to follow and implement policies for safer care. In its core patient safety is the purpose of audit and clinical governance. Amongst other, research is a vital element in this process. Nevertheless, a limitation in this could be that clinical governance might differ from one country to another.

Traditionally, patient safety was focused on rare types of incidents with a significant degree of harm referred to as “never events” in the literature [51]. However, in recent years, more efforts have been devoted to understanding the frequency and causes of PSIs that we assume occur more frequently than is reported today [51]. The perceived threshold determining what is considered a PSI may often be vague; and the border is not absolute, particularly as we come to understand patient safety better. It is important to emphasize that common side effects (e.g., root resorption) are not considered PSIs as these side effects may also occur when a patient has undergone an optimally performed course of treatment, unless, of course, these side effects were avoidable and appropriate measures had been adopted [52]. The extent of such side effects, however, can vary and probably depends on a wide range of factors (force magnitude, treatment duration) [53]. Excessive root resorption, however, may be considered a PSI if the risk factors were not assessed before initiating treatment and if precautionary measures were not taken in advance. A step towards safer orthodontics may be to incorporate such “risk maps” routinely in systematic reviews. For example, when a systematic review compares A to B, reporting just which of the two is more efficient or faster may be insufficient. The burden and the risk of harm to the patient should also be reported. This reporting may include anything that may be considered a PSI, from excessive root resorption to increased exposure to radiation, cytotoxicity, effect on patients’ OHRQoL, late diagnosis, overtreatment, gingival recessions or bone dehiscence, etc. A cultural change in the way we approach these “side effects” and further patient-centred research will improve patient safety in our field. In addition, in today's rapidly evolving technological landscape, where new advancements outpace research capabilities, emphasizing the safety of orthodontic materials is crucial while treatment decisions need to be patient-centred, based on their perspective [54].

Strengths and limitations

The strengths of this systematic review include an extensive literature search, a predefined protocol, a priori registration with PROSPERO and the adoption of a strict methodology at all study stages [55]. Also, the fact that there was no date or language limitation in the search, provided us with data that likely reflect the current understanding and knowledge about PSI in orthodontics. In addition, the proposed categorisation of PSIs in orthodontics and the future-agenda proposals may spark interest and lead to further research in the field of orthodontic patient safety.

Certain limitations need further consideration: mainly the inability to assess precise prevalence of orthodontic PSIs and categorise them accordingly. This inability is due to the poor current evidence and lack of standardisation and terminology and the fact that many PSIs are probably underreported. It can also be due to the fact that patient safety is a topic of increasing complexity, especially with the new risks arising directly from the use of new technologies [51]. Also, there is inherent risk of bias due to the nature of the studies included which were mostly retrospective [56]. Furthermore, in this study, the final selection of the included studies was consensus-based instead of individually assessing the suitability of the articles during the review process. Finally, despite thorough searching, there could be studies overlooked during the process, possibly originating from databases not encompassed in the search.

Conclusion

Current evidence on patient safety in orthodontics is scarce due to a lack of standardisation and potential under-reporting of PSIs. The current literature on orthodontic patient safety deals mostly with “measuring harms” and “understanding causes of patient safety”, whereas less attention has been devoted to initiatives “identifying solutions”, “evaluating impact” and “translating evidence into safer care”. The present project presents proposals for a new categorisation, terminology and a future research agenda that may serve as a framework to support future research and clinical initiatives to improve patient safety in orthodontic care.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

References

  1. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To Err Is Human. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000;52:1–287.

    Google Scholar 

  2. World Health Organization (WHO). Conceptual Framework for the International Classification for Patient Safety Final Technical Report. International Classification [Internet]. 2009;(January):3–101. Available from: http://www.who.int/patientsafety/taxonomy/ICPS_Statement_of_Purpose.pdf

  3. Scott A, Egner W, Gawkrodger DJ, Hatton P V., Sherriff M, Van Noort R, et al. The national survey of adverse reactions to dental materials in the UK: A preliminary study by the UK Adverse Reactions Reporting Project. Vol. 196, British Dental Journal. Nature Publishing Group; 2004. p. 471–7.

  4. Peleg O, Givot DMDN, Halamish-shani T, Taicher S. Wrong tooth extraction: root cause analysis. Br Dent J. 2011;210(4):163–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Yamalik N, Perea PB. Patient safety and dentistry: What do we need to know? Fundamentals of patient safety, the safety culture and implementation of patient safety measures in dental practice. Int Dent J. 2012;62(4):189–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dehghanian D, Heydarpoor P, Attaran N, Khoshnevisan M. Clinical governance in general dental practice. Journal of International Oral Health. 2019;11(3):107–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Thusu S, Panesar S, Bedi R. Patient safety in dentistry - State of play as revealed by a national database of errors. Br Dent J. 2012;213(3):E3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hiivala N, Mussalo-Rauhamaa H, Tefke HL, Murtomaa H. An analysis of dental patient safety incidents in a patient complaint and healthcare supervisory database in Finland. Acta Odontol Scand [Internet]. 2016 Feb 17;74(2):81–9. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2015.1042040

  9. Hebballi NB, Ramoni R, Kalenderian E, Delattre VF, Stewart DCL, Kent K, et al. The dangers of dental devices as reported in the food and drug administration manufacturer and user facility device experience database. J Am Dent Assoc. 2015;146(2):102–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Samuels RHA, Brezniak N. Orthodontic facebows: Safety issues and current management. J Orthod. 2002;29(2):101–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bailey E, Tickle M, Campbell S, O’Malley L. Systematic review of patient safety interventions in dentistry. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15(1):152.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Kravitz ND, Kusnoto B. Risks and complications of orthodontic miniscrews. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;131(4):S43-51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kravitz ND, Kusnoto B. Soft-tissue lasers in orthodontics: An overview. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133(4 SUPPL):S110-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Johal A, Abed Al Jawad F, Marcenes W, Croft N. Does orthodontic treatment harm children’s diets? J Dent. 2013;41(11):949–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. World Health Organization. WHO patient safety research : better knowledge for safer care. 2009;12 p.

  16. Tokede O, Walji M, Ramoni R, Rindal D, Worley D, Hebballi N, et al. Quantifying Dental Office–Originating Adverse Events: The Dental Practice Study Methods. J Patient Saf. 2017;Publish Ah(00):1–8.

  17. Vaid N. Scoping studies: Should there be more in orthodontic literature? APOS Trends in Orthodontics. 2019;9(3):124–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rak D. X-ray examinations in orthodontic diagnostics as a source of ionizing radiation. Bilten Udruzenja ortodonata Jugoslavije. Bulletin Orthod Soc Yugosl. 1989;22:37–48.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sims AP, Roberts-Harry TJ, Roberts-Harry DP. The incidence and prevention of ocular injuries in orthodontic practice. Br J Orthod. 1993;20(4):339–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Samuels R, O’Neill J, Bhavra G, Hills D, Thomas P, Hug H, et al. A clinical evaluation of a locking orthodontic facebow. American J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;117(3):344–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Raggio DP, Camargo LB, Naspitz GMCC, Bonifacio CC, Politano GT, Mendes FM, et al. Latex allergy in dentistry: Clinical cases report. J Clin Exp Dent. 2010;2(1):e55–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bationo R, Jordana F, Boileau MJ, Colat-Parros J. Release of monomers from orthodontic adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2016;150(3):491–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Abbott P. Are dental radiographs safe? Aust Dent J. 2000;45(3):208–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chaushu S, Zeltser R, Becker A. Safe orthodontic bonding for children with disabilities during general anaesthesia. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22(3):225–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Suzuki M, Deguchi T, Watanabe H, Seiryu M, Iikubo M, Sasano T, et al. Evaluation of optimal length and insertion torque for miniscrews. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2013;144(2):251–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kuroda S, Tanaka E. Risks and complications of miniscrew anchorage in clinical orthodontics. Japan Dent Sci Rev. 2014;50:79–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. McCusker N, Lee SM, Robinson S, Patel N, Sandy JR, Ireland AJ. Light curing in orthodontics; Should we be concerned? Dent Mater. 2013;29(6):e85-90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Görgülü S, Ayyildiz S, Kamburoǧlu K, Gökçe S, Ozen T. Effect of orthodontic brackets and different wires on radiofrequency heating and magnetic field interactions during 3-T MRI. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2014;43(2):20130356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mouhat M, Mercer J, Stangvaltaite L, Örtengren U. Light-curing units used in dentistry: factors associated with heat development—potential risk for patients. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(5):1687–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Anwar H, Waring D. Improving patient safety through a clinical audit spiral: prevention of wrong tooth extraction in orthodontics. Br Dent J. 2017;223(1):48–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cullingham P, Saksena A, Pemberton MN. Patient safety: Reducing the risk of wrong tooth extraction. Br Dent J. 2017;222(10):759–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Jacob O, Gough E, Thomas H. Preventing wrong tooth extraction. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2021;55(3):316–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Jerrold L, Danoff-Rudick J. Never events in clinical orthodontic practice. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2022;161(4):480–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Knoedler S, Baecher H, Hoch CC, Obed D, Matar DY, Rendenbach C, et al. Early Outcomes and Risk Factors in Orthognathic Surgery for Mandibular and Maxillary Hypo- and Hyperplasia: A 13-Year Analysis of a Multi-Institutional Database. J Clin Med. 2023;12(4):1444.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Bagley CHM, Panesar SS, Patel B, Cleary K, Pickles J. Safer cut: Revelations of surgical harm through a national database [Internet]. Vol. 71, British Journal of Hospital Medicine. MA Healthcare London; 2010. p. 484–5. Available from: https://www.magonlinelibrary.com/doi/10.12968/hmed.2010.71.9.78155

  36. Yamalik N. Quality systems in dentistry Part 2. Quality assurance and improvement (QA/I) tools that have implications for dentistry. Int Dent J [Internet]. 2007;57(6):459–67. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18265780/

  37. Hua F. Dental patient-reported outcomes update 2022. J Evid Based Dent Pract. Mosby. 2023;23:1–6.

  38. Tao Z, Zhao T, Ngan P, Qin D, Hua F, He H. The use of dental patient-reported outcomes among randomized controlled trials in orthodontics: a methodological study. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2023;23(1): 101795.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Díaz-Flores-García V, Perea-Pérez B, Labajo-González E, Santiago-Sáez A, Cisneros-Cabello R. Proposal of a “Checklist” for endodontic treatment. J Clin Exp Dent. 2014;6(2):104–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wright S, Ucer TC, Crofts G. The adaption and implementation of the WHO surgical safety checklist for dental procedures. Br Dent J. 2018;225(8):727–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Nenad MW, Halupa C, Spolarich AE, Gurenlian JAR. A Dental Radiography Checklist as a Tool for Quality Improvement. J Dent Hyg. 2016;90(6):386–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Beddis HP, Davies SJ, Budenberg A, Horner K, Pemberton MN. Temporomandibular disorders, trismus and malignancy: Development of a checklist to improve patient safety. Br Dent J. 2014;217(7):351–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Schmitt CM, Buchbender M, Musazada S, Bergauer B, Neukam FW. Evaluation of Staff Satisfaction After Implementation of a Surgical Safety Checklist in the Ambulatory of an Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department and its Impact on Patient Safety. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76(8):1616–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wilson L, Walker L. The WHO surgical safety checklist: The evidence. J Perioper Pract [Internet]. 2009;19(10):362–4. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/175045890901901002

  45. Weiser TG, Haynes AB, Dziekan G, Berry WR, Lipsitz SR, Gawande AA. Effect of A 19-item surgical safety checklist during urgent operations in a global patient population. Ann Surg. 2010;251(5):976–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Vats A, Vincent CA, Nagpal K, Davies RW, Darzi A, Moorthy K. Practical challenges of introducing WHO surgical checklist: UK pilot experience. BMJ (Online). 2010;340(7738):133–5.

    Google Scholar 

  47. World Health Organization. Tool and Resources [Internet]. WHO Surgical Safety Checklist. 2009. Available from: https://www.who.int/teams/integrated-health-services/patient-safety/research/safe-surgery/tool-and-resources

  48. Clark S, Hamilton L. WHO surgical checklist: Needs to be customised by specialty. Vol. 340, BMJ (Online). British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 2010. p. 280.

  49. World Health Organization (WHO). Global Patient Safety Action Plan 2021–2030 [Internet]. Vol. 53, World Health Organization. 2020. 1689–1699 p. Available from: https://www.who.int/teams/integrated-health-services/patient-safety/policy/global-patient-safety-action-plan

  50. World Health Organization (WHO). Patient Safety Research course.2022; Available from: https://www.who.int/teams/integrated-health-services/patient-safety/guidance/patient-safety-research-course

  51. Vincent C, Amalberti R. Safer Healthcare: Strategies for the Real World. Cham: Springer; 2016. p. 1–157.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Stoustrup P, Ferlias N. Patientskader i forbindelse med ortodonti Tandlaegebladet. 2022;126:812–22.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Yassir YA, McIntyre GT, Bearn DR. Orthodontic treatment and root resorption: An overview of systematic reviews. Eur J Orthod. 2021;43(4):442–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Alansari R, Vaiid N. Why do patients transition between orthodontic appliances? A qualitative analysis of patient decision-making. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2023;00:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Higgins, Julian PT and Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions | Cochrane Training. Vol. 2, Handbook. 2011. p. 649.

  56. OCEBM Table of Evidence Working Group = Jeremy Howick, Iain Chalmers (James Lind Library), Paul Glasziou, Trish Greenhalgh, Carl Heneghan, Alessandro Liberati, Ivan Moschetti, Bob Phillips, Hazel Thornton OG and MH. OCEBM Levels of Evidence — Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM), University of Oxford [Internet]. 2011. p. 1. Available from: https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/ocebm-levels-of-evidence

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Orthodontics, Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

    Nikolaos Ferlias & Peter Stoustrup

  2. Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Oral Sciences, Section of Orthodontics and Temporomandibular Disorders, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy

    Ambrosina Michelotti

  3. Private Practice, Brighton, UK

    Nikolaos Ferlias

Authors
  1. Nikolaos Ferlias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ambrosina Michelotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Stoustrup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NF: Conceptualization, Search strategy, Data synthesis, interpretation and analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing original draft, Writing review & editing. AM: Investigation, Methodology, Data interpretation and analysis, Supervision, Validation, Writing review & editing. PS: Conceptualization, Search strategy, Data synthesis, interpretation and analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing original draft, Writing review & editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikolaos Ferlias.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ferlias, N., Michelotti, A. & Stoustrup, P. Patient safety in orthodontic care: a scoping literature review with proposal for terminology and future research agenda. BMC Oral Health 24, 702 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04375-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04375-7

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us