Evaluation of Tooth Loss as a Permanent Mark on The Face: A Survey Study

• Published in: Adli tıp bülteni Vol. 26; no. 2; pp. 92 - 100
• Main Authors: Balcı, Yasemin, Gürpınar, Kağan, Afşin, Hüseyin, Çolak, Başar
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Adli Tıp Uzmanları Derneği 01.08.2021
• Subjects: forensic medicine; permanent mark; tooth loss; turkish penal code
• ISSN: 1300-865X; 2149-4533
• DOI: 10.17986/blm.1401

Objective:There are different opinions about whether tooth loss is accepted as a permanent mark on the face or not. The aim of this study is to contribute to the implementation partnership by determining the opinions about “whether the traumatic tooth loss is accepted as a permanent mark on the face or not” within the framework of the Turkish Penal Code.Methods:In the study, an informative text, containing different views, was presented to forensic medicine specialist, dentists and judiciary. Then, a questionnaire including their areas of expertise, their province, duration of experience, and their opinions on the subject was applied. The survey data were analyzed and evaluated through a statistical program.Results:A total of 162 people, including 103 forensic medicine specialists/residents, 38 lawyers and 21 dentists, participated in the survey. The 38.8% of forensic medicine specialists/residents, 90.5% of dentists and 34% of lawyers were working in three major cities (Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir). While 61.1% of the participants had 10 (-) years of experience, 38.5% had 11 (+) years of experience. While the forensic medicine specialists and residents were statistically significantly higher in the 10 (-) year experienced group, the majority of dentists had work experience of 11 years or more (p<0.05). 13% of the participants were of the opinion that “tooth loss should not be evaluated as a permanent mark on the face”. The remaining 87% were fond of the opinion that conditional or unconditional “tooth loss should be evaluated as a permanent scarring”. When the areas of expertise and experience of the participants were taken into account, there was no statistically significant difference in terms of evaluation of tooth loss as a permanent mark on the face (p>0.05). The opinions expressed by the participants in writing were also grouped and presented according to their areas of expertise.Conclusion:Teeth losses can be restored in a way that can create an aesthetic appearance very close to the original with today’s dentistry possibilities. On the other hand, people have to live with unnatural teeth instead of their natural teeth or live with tooth loss without having their teeth restored. Different causes, such as fear, economic constraints, timelessness or inability to reach to the appropriate physician, appear to be barriers to treatment. It has been determined that the general approach is to evaluate the incurable tooth loss as permanent mark on the face.