J. Orthod.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jones, J. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jones, J. W.
Journal of Orthodontics, Vol. 26, No. 4, 307-324, December 1999
© 1999 British Orthodontic Society


Features Section

A Medico-legal Review of Some Current UK Guidelines in Orthodontics: A Personal View

J. Warren Jones, LL.M., M.ORTH. F.D.S.R.C.S.

Department or Oral Surgery & Orthodontics, Warrington Hospital NHS Trust, Lovely Lane, Warrington, Cheshire WA5 1QG, U.K.

Abstract

This article is a critical analysis from a medico-legal perspective of some current authoritative UK clinical guidelines in orthodontics. Two clinical guidelines have been produced by the Royal College of Surgeons of England and four by the British Orthodontic Society. Each guideline is published with the analysis immediately following it. Following recent UK case law (Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority, 1997) which allows the courts to choose between two bodies of responsible expert medical opinion where they feel one opinion is not ‘logical’, it is likely that the UK courts will increasingly turn to authoritative clinical guidelines to assist them in judging whether or not an appropriate standard of care has been achieved in medical negligence cases. It is thus important for clinicians to be aware of the recommendations of such guidelines, and if these are not followed the reasons should be discussed with the patient and recorded in the clinical case notes. This article attempts to highlight aspects of the guidelines that have medico-legal implications.

Key words: Consent, Ectopic Maxillary Canine, Orthodontic Materials, Orthodontic Radiography, Unerupted Maxillary Canines




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Eur J OrthodHome page
D. Mavreas and A. E. Athanasiou
Factors affecting the duration of orthodontic treatment: a systematic review
Eur J Orthod, August 1, 2008; 30(4): 386 - 395.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Orthod.Home page
J. Sandler, S. Sira, and A. Murray
Photographic 'Kesling set-up'
J. Orthod., June 1, 2005; 32(2): 85 - 88.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1999 British Orthodontic Society.