A growing body of evidence has indicated a possible association between oral and gastrointestinal (orodigestive) cancers and periodontal disease or tooth loss. However, the evidence remains contradictory. This study investigated whether tooth loss, which is indicative of poor oral health and a potential source of oral infections, is associated with death from orodigestive cancer.

Findings from several studies suggest associations between tooth loss and health outcomes, including malnutrition, poor quality of life, and mortality, in older individuals. However, limited information is available regarding whether those associations remain true in very elderly subjects after adequately considering confounding factors such as sex and smoking status. Herein, we determined whether the number of teeth in 80-year-old subjects is an independent predictor of mortality.

The aim of this study was to review the typical factors related to physician’s liability in obstetrics and gynecology departments, as compared to those in internal medicine and surgery, regarding a breach of the duty to explain. This study involved analyzing 366 medical litigation case reports from 1990 through 2008 where the duty to explain was disputed. We examined relationships between patients, physicians, variables related to physician’s explanations, and physician’s breach of the duty to explain by comparing mean values and percentages in obstetrics and gynecology, internal medicine, and surgical departments with the t-test and χ2 test. When we compared the reasons for decisions in cases where the patient won, we found that the percentage of cases in which the patient’s claim was recognized was the highest for both physician negligence, including errors of judgment and procedural mistakes, and breach of the duty to explain, in obstetrics and gynecology departments; breach of the duty to explain alone in internal medicine departments; and mistakes in medical procedures alone in surgical departments (p = 0.008). When comparing patients, the rate of death was significantly higher than that of other outcomes in precedents where a breach of the duty to explain was acknowledged (p = 0.046). The proportion of cases involving obstetrics and gynecology departments, in which care was claimed to be substandard at the time of treatment, and that were not argued as breach of a duty to explain, was significantly higher than those of other evaluated departments (p <0.001). However, internal medicine and surgical departments were very similar in this context. In obstetrics and gynecology departments, the proportion of cases in which it had been conceded that the duty to explain had been breached when seeking patient approval (or not) was significantly higher than in other departments (p = 0.002). It is important for physicians working in obstetrics and gynecology departments to carefully explain the risk of death associated with any planned procedure, and to obtain genuinely informed patient consent.

Dental litigation accounts for approximately 10% of medical cases in Japan. This study sought to identify factors related to dentists' legal liability in Japan, including their duty to explain procedures and treatments to their patients. We analysed court decisions in 166 dental malpractice cases litigated in Japan between 1978 and 2017. To identify factors related to the legal liability of dentists, an analysis was performed to evaluate the associations among patient characteristics, dentist characteristics, litigation, and dentists' explanatory behaviour. Of the 36 cases related to dentist liability, the study identified 23 cases (63.9%) of litigation in which the dentists were found to be in violation of their duty to provide an explanation. Regarding the severity of injury, the ratio of death and permanent disability was significantly higher in decisions in which the purpose of the explanation was something other than obtaining the patient's consent compared with decisions to obtain the patient's consent (P = .014). In cases in which the dentist was found legally responsible, the proportion of cases involving procedural negligence with the explanation of medical guidance was significantly higher. Dentists should pay careful attention not only to the patient's consent but also to their explanations, including "medical guidance." Moreover, they should recognise that inappropriate explanations correlate with serious errors.

Communication between physician and patient is critical in all fields of medicine, and various types of communication exist in healthcare settings. Cooperation among healthcare professionals is thought to be essential in providing high-quality services. Dental hygienists are key team members in the provision of dental care, and are known to play an important role in the health of their patients. This study aimed to determine the effect of communication between dentists and hygienists on patient satisfaction. Study subjects were dentists, patients, and dental hygienists, and we examined how dentist–dental hygienist communication affected patient outcome indices. A significant difference was observed only for satisfaction in terms of meeting expectations (p = 0.035). Results for patient satisfaction indicated significant differences in explanatory behavior in dentist–dental hygienist evaluations (p = 0.001). The results showed improved health and reduced fear, indicating significant differences for the dentist–dental hygienist evaluations in explanation behavior (p = 0.016). Our evaluation of the effects of dentist–dental hygienist communication on patient outcomes indicated a significant correlation, suggesting that inter-professional communication in the field of dentistry affects patient satisfaction.