In a claim of faulty dental treatment, the reason why pain or implant loss occurred matters as much as the pain or loss itself. The deficiency in the treatment plan, incorrect application, inadequate information and follow-up error are each examined separately. Liability cannot be established from the patient's final photograph or a single X-ray alone, without comparing the patient's earlier oral health, the procedures performed and the harm that arose later.
Implant, root canal treatment, tooth extraction, veneer and prosthesis disputes raise different technical questions. This guide explains which documents the patient should keep, how fee refunds and correction costs should be separated, and which legal points the actual Court of Cassation decisions illuminate. Continuing treatment and a legal claim do not have to wait for each other; necessary health care should not be postponed in order to gather evidence.
Which conduct in dental treatment may give rise to liability
Extracting the wrong tooth, failing to carry out the required assessment, placing an implant in a way that damages neighbouring structures, disregarding an existing infection or failing to evaluate follow-up findings may be subject to a liability debate. Whether a finding counts as an error is examined against the medical standard at the time of treatment and the concrete circumstances of the patient. Clinical failure and conduct that gives rise to legal liability are not the same thing. [1]
The dentist may argue that the procedure was properly performed and that the result is due to a pre-existing condition or to lack of care. This defence should be assessed together with the initial records and the explanations given to the patient. If it is claimed that the patient did not keep their oral health history or did not follow instructions, the concrete effect of that conduct on the harm is also examined. A general statement that the patient “did not look after it” is no substitute for an analysis of causation.
Why implant loss alone is not sufficient
The failure of an implant may arise from different causes: patient selection, treatment planning, application, biological response and later care. Which imaging was required, how the bone and neighbouring anatomical structures were assessed, the characteristics of the implant used and the loading plan are examined in the concrete file. Whether the same test was mandatory or unnecessary in every case cannot be stated in advance from the legal text.
That an implant was lost does not in itself prove fault. Conversely, the explanation that “the implant might not have held anyway” does not remove the effect of misdirection, inadequate planning or damage to a neighbouring tooth. The expert should be asked not only whether the implant held, but also about the probable causes of the loss and whether it was preventable.
Root canal treatment and instrument breakage
An instrument breaking inside a canal, or infection appearing after treatment, should not be assessed apart from the whole event. The pre-existing condition, the canal structure, the method applied, the information given when the event was noticed and the follow-up treatment plan are all important. Concealment of the breakage or failure to carry out necessary follow-up may raise a separate debate from the technical nature of the original event.
The patient should document what they learned and when, and what findings the subsequent dentist recorded. Rather than an oral statement by the second dentist that “it was done wrongly”, recording the observed condition and the reasons for the proposed procedure makes review easier. Even if later treatment fails, that does not automatically place the whole loss on the first dentist.
How the nature of the treatment contract affects the result
The duty of care in treating a disease and an undertaking to achieve a specific prosthetic or aesthetic result may call for different assessments. Depending on the content of the relationship, the mandate and contract-for-work provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) come into play. The Court of Cassation has made assessments of contracts for work in comprehensive aesthetic veneer and implant procedures. However, this does not mean that all dental procedures are treated as a single contract type. [1, 5]
Where there is a consumer transaction, the provisions on defective services and duty (görev) under the Consumer Protection Law (TKHK) also apply. The conclusion that “there is a contract for work, so the consumer court has no jurisdiction” is not correct. Consumer status and the specific legal type of the contract are different questions. The documents should determine who undertook what among the dentist, the clinic operator and any other company selling the service. [2]
How should the cutting of healthy teeth and the alternatives be explained?
In a veneer or aesthetic smile design plan, it is important that the irreversible loss of tissue and the alternatives are explained in an understandable way. A patient's general statement that they “want beautiful teeth” does not show consent to cutting any tooth in any scope. Which procedure will be applied to how many teeth, the expected benefit and the significant risks must be understood by the patient. The information and consent provisions of the Patient Rights Regulation (Hasta Hakları Yönetmeliği) also apply here. [3]
The treatment plan may change during the process. However, for a new extraction, implant or extensive veneer that was not discussed at the start, the reason and scope of the change must be explained. Emergency and necessity situations are assessed according to their concrete circumstances. A fee agreement and medical consent do not substitute for each other; making a payment does not mean that all medical procedures have been accepted.
How is liability divided between the clinic and different dentists?
The person who plans, the person who places the implant and the person who completes the prosthesis may be different people. It must be determined who carried out each stage and whether the subsequent person noticed a problem left by the previous stage. The clinic's obligations concerning records, staff, materials and referral arrangements are examined separately. Liability for auxiliary persons under Article 116 of the TBK and a person's own fault are not the same concept. [1]
Depending on the claim, the possible liability of the laboratory or the material manufacturer is also assessed separately. The fact that an implant brand is named in the document does not automatically remove the dentist's liability; if a product defect is claimed, the identity of the product, its serial or lot information and usage records are needed. In choosing defendants, the real or legal person named in the contract and the invoice counts, not only the name on the signboard. Multiple liable parties do not allow the same loss to be recovered repeatedly.
Which documents and images should be requested?
Article 16 of the Patient Rights Regulation is the main basis for examining records and taking copies of them. Obtaining only the last invoice or a screenshot of an X-ray is not enough. Original digital images suitable for review, reports and the dates of the procedures should be kept together. Health data should not be shared with unauthorised persons or on open social media accounts. [3]
| Document or record | Question it clarifies | How to keep it |
|---|---|---|
| Initial examination and treatment plan | What the starting situation was and what procedure was undertaken | Complete dated copy and later changes |
| Earlier and later images | When and in which area the harm arose | Original file such as DICOM where available, and its report |
| Procedure and materials record | Who did what, and with which material | Tooth number, procedure date, implant identity |
| Consent and information documents | Which options and risks were explained | All signed pages and annexes |
| Invoices, payments and correspondence | Which service, price and follow-up were undertaken | Original file, receipts and complete correspondence |
| Subsequent examinations and expenses | Why correction is needed and how large the loss is | Reasoned report, plan and payment documents |
If an implant must be removed or a prosthesis replaced, the previous state should be recorded, as far as medically possible. Preservation of the removed material and the chain of custody can be discussed with experts; the patient should not intervene on their own. If urgent treatment is needed, health care should be obtained rather than waiting for a legal review, and that necessity should be documented.
Which questions should be put to the expert?
The fields of expertise the file requires must be determined. Different claims concerning implant planning, surgical application, root canal treatment and prosthetics cannot be answered in a single general sentence. The expert is asked to compare the earlier state with the later findings, explain the applicable standard and assess causation for each claim. Decisions on the choice of legal remedy and on liability belong to the court. [4]
If the report omits a specific tooth number, procedure date or image, the objection should be built on that omission. Instead of “I do not accept the report”, show which document could change which conclusion. The period for objecting to an expert report under Article 281 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) is two weeks from notification; if the conditions are met, an additional period requested within that period may be granted once, for at most two weeks. To avoid missing the deadline, establish exactly when the report was served. [4]
Evidence preservation can help record a situation that is about to change or disappear. The conditions under Article 400 et seq. of the HMK must be met. A preservation report does not automatically win the case; the opposing party's objections and the examination in the main proceedings continue. An expert opinion obtained by a party does not have the same procedural standing as a court expert's report.
Actual decision: wrongful extraction of a permanent tooth
15th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 15. Hukuk Dairesi), 10 July 2018, E.2017/1532, K.2018/2978: In a case where the permanent tooth beside a decayed primary tooth was extracted instead of the primary tooth, the Court of Cassation, when assessing non-pecuniary damages, took into account the permanent loss, the future treatment, the waiting period before an implant and the effects that would follow. It found the amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage insufficient and reversed the decision on that point. [6]
The decision shows that, for a child patient, the weight of the future treatment burden matters, not only the pain on the day of extraction. However, what distinguishes this case is that the application error was specifically identified. Not every tooth extraction or every child's treatment produces the same legal outcome. The old procedural provisions and the monetary amounts of that period in the decision cannot be used as a current application route or as a compensation table.
The child's claim for bodily harm is separated from the parent's own claim. The child exercises their rights through a properly constituted legal representative. A parent's non-pecuniary damages do not arise automatically from parental status alone; conditions such as serious bodily harm under Article 56 of the TBK are assessed. The legal basis on which the parent paid the expense, and on whose behalf it is claimed, should be explained in the petition. [1]
Actual decision: defect and choice of remedy in implant and veneer treatment
6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi), 11 May 2023, E.2022/747, K.2023/1785: In a dispute concerning three implants and twenty-one zirconia teeth applied to a patient who came from Germany, expert examinations revealed several application problems and the need for re-treatment. The earlier reversal required clarification of the elective right under Article 475 of the TBK. The partial acceptance decision given after the reversal was upheld by the Court of Cassation. [5]
What matters for the reader in this file is that the conclusion “the treatment was faulty” does not complete the calculation of loss. The choice of which right was exercised, the part of the procedure that remained useful, the need for re-treatment and the possibility of double compensation were considered together. It cannot be concluded that all of the claimant's foreign-currency, lost-income and travel items were automatically accepted.
The case was opened in 2013. The fact that the Civil Court of First Instance (Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi) and the former appeal procedure appear in the decision does not mean that a dispute of the same type must today be brought before the same court or under the same procedure. Current consumer legislation, the date of application and the nature of the concrete relationship should be assessed separately. [2, 5]
How are fee refunds and correction costs assessed together?
For defective services, it is determined which of the rights under Article 15 of the Consumer Protection Law (TKHK) will be used. In relationships of a contract-for-work nature, the defect provisions of the TBK are also taken into account. Free repair, price reduction, rescission and compensation cannot be combined in a way that covers the same economic loss several times. On the other hand, a refund of the service fee does not by itself remove bodily harm that has separately arisen. [1, 2]
For example, removal of a defective implant, repair of bone or neighbouring tooth damage and the making of a new prosthesis may involve different expenses. Which of these corresponds to the price of the original contract, and which is an additional consequence of the error, should be shown separately. Choosing a more expensive or broader aesthetic procedure does not mean that the whole difference must necessarily be charged to the other party.
The same distinction applies to future maintenance and renewals. Maintenance carried out because of normal use is separated from the additional treatment made necessary by the error. Instead of assuming unlimited lifetime costs, the necessary procedure, the foreseeable time and a reasonable cost are explained through expert examination. Loss of earnings, care and travel expenses are also examined for documentation and causation.
Which application should be made and which period should be observed?
In a dispute over a consumer transaction at a private clinic, depending on the amount and type of claim, the Consumer Arbitration Committee or the consumer court may come into consideration. The monetary limit for the year of application should be checked against an official source. For disputes to be brought before a consumer court, mediation before litigation is required, subject to statutory exceptions. A complaint to the professional chamber or the health authority is not a substitute for a compensation claim. [2]
For a claim of service fault at a public oral and dental health centre, an administrative application and full judicial review should be considered based on the status of the institution. The framework of one year from learning of the act and five years from the act under Article 13 of the Administrative Procedure Law (İYUK), together with the lawsuit period that follows a rejection or a thirty-day silence, is considered together. Confusing the private and public routes may lead to loss of rights. [7]
In private law, the periods for tort, mandate, defects in a contract for work and defective services are different. TBK Articles 72, 147/5, 478 and TKHK Article 16 should be examined together; the statement “there is a five-year period in dental cases” alone is not sufficient. Notice of defect, learning of the harm, delivery, maturity (muacceliyet) and gross fault are elements that can change the outcome. Continuing discussions do not in every case preserve the period. [1, 2]
Litigation costs, translation, expert fees and the possibility of an opposing party's counsel fee award should be considered from the outset. A consumer's exemption from court fees does not remove all costs. Collection after judgment is pursued separately, according to the legal position of the debtor and of any insurer. For appeals and any increase in the claim, the current HMK provisions should be the basis; periods from an earlier decision should not be copied into a new file. [2, 4]
Conclusion
In a dental treatment dispute, effective legal review addresses each tooth and each stage of treatment with its concrete record. The existence of an error, the necessary correction and the claim chosen should be linked to one another. For the patient, the priority is to preserve images and treatment records while continuing the necessary treatment, and to assert fee refunds, additional treatment costs and other losses in time, without claiming the same loss twice.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does an implant falling out show that the dentist was at fault?
Not on its own. Planning, application, information and the care process are examined, together with patient-specific factors.
Is an instrument breaking inside a canal always malpractice?
No. Whether the event was preventable, the information given to the patient and the medical course followed after the breakage are assessed together.
Must the court be awaited before new treatment is obtained?
Necessary health care should not be postponed. Where medically possible, the state before the change should be documented; in suitable cases, evidence preservation should be considered.
Does the right to sue disappear if the clinic closes?
It does not disappear automatically. The legal position of the operator and of other responsible parties, their addresses, company records and the prospects of collection should be investigated.
Can the parents also receive compensation if a child's tooth is harmed?
The child's claim and the parents' own claims are separate. The parents' losses and the conditions for their entitlement should be shown separately.
Does a complaint to the Dentists' Chamber (Diş Hekimleri Odası) stop the limitation period?
It should not be assumed that it does so automatically. Disciplinary complaints and compensation claims are tracked on separate periods.
Sources and legal bases
[1] Republic of Türkiye, Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), Law No. 6098, Articles 49–56, 72, 112–116, 147, 470–478 and 506. Current text.
[2] Republic of Türkiye, Law on Consumer Protection (Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun), Law No. 6502, Articles 3, 13–16, 68, 73 and 73/A. Current text.
[3] Ministry of Health, Patient Rights Regulation (Hasta Hakları Yönetmeliği), Articles 15–18, 24 and 31. Ministry text.
[4] Republic of Türkiye, Code of Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), Law No. 6100, Articles 109, 190, 219–221, 266, 281, 293 and 400–406. Current text.
[5] Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi), 11 May 2023, E.2022/747, K.2023/1785, especially IV, V and VI. Official full decision.
[6] Court of Cassation 15th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 15. Hukuk Dairesi), 10 July 2018, E.2017/1532, K.2018/2978, reasoning for reversal on non-pecuniary damages. Official full decision.
[7] Republic of Türkiye, Law on Administrative Procedure (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu), Law No. 2577, Articles 7 and 13. Current text.