CBCT Scans Contain Findings Well Beyond Dentistry

Case Study

Marc Leffler, DDS, Esq.
February 7, 2023

Reading time: 8 minutes

Background Facts

A 61-year-old male patient, F, presented to an oral and maxillofacial surgeon (OMS), Dr. O, on referral from his general dentist, for evaluation and potential placement of bilateral mandibular implants.  The patient reported a benign medical history, but confided that he had not had a medical exam or laboratory studies in years; Dr. O encouraged her patient to have a medical exam as soon as possible, and F assured her that he would.  After performing a clinical oral examination, which revealed that the patient was missing all lower molars, Dr. O had a panoramic radiograph taken.  Review of the film demonstrated approximately 10-12 mm of mandibular bone superior to the inferior alveolar canals bilaterally, but Dr. O palpated a significant lingual concavity on the left side, so she thought that a CBCT would provide the best assessment of whether implant placement would be a viable treatment, and, if so, what types and sizes of implants could be employed.  Because Dr. O’s CBCT machine was not working due to a software glitch in the process of being reconfigured, she referred F to a radiology facility which had an oral and maxillofacial radiologist, Dr. R, on staff.

F made an appointment at the facility after Dr. O advised him that she had discussed the case with Dr. R.  Dr. R was asked to evaluate for available mandibular bone so as to be able to place endosseous implants in the posterior regions, preferably 2 fixtures on each side.  Dr. R read the study and advised Dr. O, in a written report, that there was adequate bone to place a 12 mm implant at the site where tooth #19 had previously been, and 10 mm fixtures at the sites where teeth # 18, 30 and 31 had been, all of standard (3.5-4.2 mm) diameter.  The written report was messengered to Dr. O with the films, but Dr. O reviewed only the report and those cuts which were directly relevant to the areas of potential mandibular implant placement; although she had been in the habit of reviewing the entirety of studies performed in her own office, she did not do so here, presuming that the oral and maxillofacial radiologist had done a thorough overall assessment.  Four implants were uneventfully placed, they integrated with bone, and all were restored without complication approximately 9 months after the CBCT was completed.

About 6 weeks after that, F saw an internist, Dr. I, for a physical exam.  F’s prostate felt rather hard to palpation, and his PSA was 8.9 ng/ml.  Dr. I referred F to a urologist, who had F undergo a work-up, which revealed Stage IV adenocarcinoma with metastases to the left sphenoid bone.  F casually mentioned to the urologist that he had a CBCT in preparation for dental implants, and nobody had said anything about any abnormalities in any bones of the head; F obtained those films and provided them to a radiologist recommended by the urologist, who concluded that there had been a suspicious lesion in the left sphenoid which extended into the sphenoid sinus, clearly visible on the CBCT.  F opted against the multiple approach cancer therapies once he was told that his chances of survival were poor, given the tumor’s staging, and he passed away in under 2 years.  

Legal Action

In his last months, F heard opinions from a number of people close to him that, if the CBCT had been properly read, the metastatic lesion would have been detected nearly a year before it was, which would have allowed him to be successfully treated.  He spoke with an attorney, but did not have the willingness to get involved with litigation in his weakened state.  However, his family members, as his estate, chose to sue for the pain he suffered before dying and for his premature death.

A lawsuit was begun, naming Dr. O and Dr. R as defendants, asserting dental malpractice against both of them for failing to adequately review and identify the metastatic sphenoid lesion, thereby causing F to be deprived of an opportunity to be successfully treated.  Both practitioners were provided with legal representation by their malpractice carrier, although separate attorneys were assigned because of the potential that the legal interests of the defendants might not be fully aligned.

Discovery and Case Resolution

During her deposition, Dr. O took the position that, because F had the CBCT performed by a specialist who was well-trained in interpreting all aspects of such a study – even perhaps to a greater extent than she – she had presumed that that specialist would focus on all anatomic regions of the study, even those that were not directly related to her implant treatment planning and surgery.  She did not blame Dr. R, and was in no way critical of his assessments, but simply stated that she had relied upon him for a complete radiographic review.

Dr. R acknowledged at his deposition that there was, in fact, a radiographically visible lesion encompassing the sphenoid bone and adjacent sinus, but, at the time of initially reading the CBCT, he was focused solely on the issues surrounding implant placement, so he failed to see the mass which was some distance away from the area of his concentration.  Realizing that Dr. R had essentially testified to his own negligence, his attorneys worked to disprove the causation prong of the estate’s claim, namely that a diagnosis a year earlier than it came would have given F a fair chance at survival.  

To that end, Dr. R’s counsel retained an oncology expert, Dr. E, who was of the opinion that it was “unlikely” that an earlier diagnosis in this case would have made any difference in the potential for F to have survived, based upon the existence of a metastasis, the usual characteristics of malignancies of this type, and the specific histological features of the primary tumor.  However, Dr. E advised the attorneys for Dr. R that other experts might legitimately disagree with him on this issue, as there are speculative and subjective aspects at play.

At trial, before Dr. E testified, Dr. R heard the testimony of the plaintiff’s oncology expert on the issue of causation – that there would have been a real chance for curative treatment, or at least treatment which would have meaningfully extended F’s life, if the lesion had been timely detected on the CBCT – and found it to be compelling and believable, raising a concern that the jury could find against him for more than his policy limits.  With his authority, his attorneys negotiated a settlement with the plaintiff’s attorney.  Upon reaching that agreement, the case against Dr. O was discontinued, with the plaintiff’s attorney privately acknowledging that it would have been difficult to prove a case against her, given that, although she was a specialist, she had made a referral to another specialist who was arguably more specifically trained and experienced in diagnosing skull lesions.


One of the overriding concepts addressed by this case study is that the teeth, jaws, and oral cavity as a whole lie close to “non-dental” areas of the body, so conditions related to those other areas might affect that which dentists do.  And physiologic or anatomic problems in even distant locations may also have an impact upon areas treated by dentists.  So, dentists best serve their patients by maintaining a sense of awareness of the construct that, colloquially speaking, “the teeth are connected to the body”, and vice versa, and with that comes a patient responsibility that extends beyond the teeth, jaws, and oral tissues.

In this case, due to a mechanical issue, Dr. O stepped out of her usual practice pattern by referring to another specialist something that she generally handled on her own, and that ended up leading to an assessment deficiency.  As we see it, it was the prudent course of action for her to have referred to a radiology facility with an oral and maxillofacial radiologist on its staff, but that comfort might have factored into her failing to perform the complete review that she would have otherwise undertaken.  It is an example of a circumstance – whether, as here, a mechanical breakdown, or a staff shortage, or a scheduling snafu – which changes the tried and true into less tested ground, a situation more likely to lead to errors.

What was fortunately avoided in this case was jousting – or the “throwing under the bus” – against Dr. R by Dr. O.  Unfortunately, one dentist blaming another and voicing that to patients (and/or lawyers), is far from uncommon and it is a frequent act that leads patients to engage in litigation when results are not what were expected.  Here, Dr. O was able to protect her own position without criticizing the actions of Dr. R, which is an important lesson in professionalism.

While Dr. O did not know, and could not have known, at the time that pushing her patient to obtain a medical exam would lead to her later being implicated in a malpractice suit, it was, nevertheless, exactly what was in the patient’s best interests.  Had she not done so, F’s disease would likely not have been discovered until he became quite ill, so proof of the causation prong would have been far more difficult for the plaintiff’s attorney and expert to achieve, and would likely have stood as a bar to the case having been brought in the first place.  But again, Dr. O upheld her ethical obligations, and that is always the proper approach, regardless of the outcome.

Dental and medical specialists exist to maximize the quality of patient care.  General practitioners are not expected to be experts in every area of their profession, and even specialists, who may well have high levels of expertise in their limited fields, are not authorities on everything.  So, appropriate referrals are always prudent and are hopefully appreciated by patients.  Acknowledging limitations in knowledge or ability is not something to be ashamed of, but instead something to be embraced; doing so supports ethical principles which guide the practice of dentistry, benefits patient care, and lessens the likelihood of becoming a defendant in a malpractice lawsuit.  While, in concept, referrals are usually appropriate and helpful, that should not be presumed to mean that every referral will eliminate liability in every situation, because all circumstances are fact-based and individual. 

Finally, as we have noted in earlier case studies, a plaintiff must prove, through expert testimony, that not only was the defendant OMS negligent, but that such negligence directly caused the injuries complained of.  Without expert proof of all of those elements, to the satisfaction of a judge and a jury, the defendant will prevail.  So, while Dr. R admitted to his own negligence, that alone was not determinative of the outcome: a causal connection between that negligence and the claimed injuries was required as well.

Note that this case presentation includes circumstances from several different closed cases, in order to demonstrate certain legal and risk management principles, and that identifying facts and personal characteristics were modified to protect identities. The content within is not the original work of MedPro Group but has been published with consent of the author. Nothing contained in this article should be construed as legal, medical, or dental advice. Because the facts applicable to your situation may vary, or the laws applicable in your jurisdiction may differ, please contact your personal or business attorney or other professional advisors if you have any questions related to your legal or medical obligations or rights, state or federal laws, contract interpretation, or other legal questions.

Additional Risk Tips content

Risk Tips

Oral and maxillofacial surgeons often face unhappy patients. In this case study, a patient who receives dermal fillers later files a Board complaint.

Risk Tips

In oral surgery, documentation is an essential element of practice. In this case study, the lack of detail in an OMS’s chart entry impacts the outcome of a malpractice case against her.

Risk Tips

Oral and maxillofacial surgeons must strictly adhere to state guidelines about records retention. In this case study, an OMS practicing in two neighboring states neglects to maintain records for the required duration in the state in which he is sued, affecting the legal outcome.

This document does not constitute legal or medical advice and should not be construed as rules or establishing a standard of care. Because the facts applicable to your situation may vary, or the laws applicable in your jurisdiction may differ, please contact your attorney or other professional advisors if you have any questions related to your legal or medical obligations or rights, state or federal laws, contract interpretation, or other legal questions.

MedPro Group is the marketing name used to refer to the insurance operations of The Medical Protective Company, Princeton Insurance Company, PLICO, Inc. and MedPro RRG Risk Retention Group. All insurance products are underwritten and administered by these and other Berkshire Hathaway affiliates, including National Fire & Marine Insurance Company. Product availability is based upon business and/or regulatory approval and/or may differ among companies.

© MedPro Group Inc. All rights reserved.