ABSTRACT
Forensic dentistry involves the processing, review, evaluation, and presentation of dental evidence with the purpose of contributing scientific and objective data to legal processes. The present, systematic review was conducted to assess knowledge and awareness of forensic odontology among dentists in India. A systematic review of relevant cross-sectional studies was conducted regarding the level of knowledge, awareness, and practical application of forensic odontology among dentists in India. Four out of 129 studies were finally included in the present review after conducting a search of both electronic and manual scientific databases. Potential biases were addressed and the relevant data were extracted by the concerned investigators. Almost all the subjects were familiar with the subject of forensic odontology in one of the study reports. Only 12% of dentists were maintaining complete dental records in the findings of another study. Only 4% of dentists reported to have contributed to the identification of victims in a mass disaster in yet another study. The findings of another study revealed that 40% of dental practitioners did not have the expertise to identify child abuse. The results of the present review showed that the knowledge and awareness level of subjects was inadequate and that there is considerable variation in the practice of forensic odontology among dentists. It is necessary to expose dentists to the basic principles and techniques of the subject.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The medical profession has been included in the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), to protect the interests of the patients in case of any unethical treatment rendered by the doctor. The present systematic review was conducted to assess the knowledge and awareness of CPA among dental professionals in India. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of relevant cross-sectional observational studies was conducted regarding the level of knowledge and awareness of CPA among dental professionals in India. Five studies out of 44 were finally included in the present review, after conducting both an electronic and manual search of scientific databases. The potential biases were reported and appropriate data was extracted by the concerned investigators. RESULTS: More than 90% of the study subjects in one of the studies were aware of the CPA, as compared to other studies. In two studies, when queried about the correct time period during which a patient can sue a doctor, very few subjects (18 and 23.2%) answered correctly. Almost 90% of the subjects were taking some form of consent in one of the studies. Private practitioners had more awareness as compared to academicians and combined practitioners. CONCLUSION: The results of the present review showed that a majority of the subjects were aware of the existence of CPA, but knowledge about the basic rules and regulations was lacking in a few studies. Therefore, dental professionals need to keep themselves updated on the various rules and latest amendments to save themselves from any litigation.
