Dental implants, veneers, crowns, smile-design procedures and other cosmetic dental treatments have become increasingly common in Turkey. Turkey is also an important destination for international patients seeking relatively affordable dental treatment.
Most procedures are completed without serious problems. However, complications can sometimes result in implant failure, nerve damage, bone loss, infections, aesthetic deformities, chronic pain, loss of healthy teeth or the need for extensive corrective treatment.
When this happens, the patient naturally asks:
Was this simply an unavoidable medical complication, or was the dentist negligent?
If the treatment was performed incorrectly, a second question immediately follows:
Can the patient recover the treatment fee and claim compensation from the dentist or dental clinic?
Under Turkish law, the answer may be yes.
However, a successful dental malpractice claim does not normally depend merely on showing that the patient was dissatisfied with the final result. The legal analysis requires examination of the treatment plan, medical records, radiological examinations, informed consent, the dentist’s professional conduct, the patient’s own conduct and the causal relationship between the treatment and the alleged damage.
There is also an important distinction under Turkish case law between ordinary therapeutic dental treatment and procedures involving a promised aesthetic or technically identifiable result.
That distinction may significantly affect the dentist’s contractual obligations.
1. What Is Dental Malpractice Under Turkish Law?
Not every unsuccessful dental treatment constitutes malpractice.
Dentistry necessarily involves biological uncertainty. An implant can fail even if the dentist follows accepted medical standards. Infection can occur despite appropriate sterilisation and treatment. Bone integration may not develop as expected. The patient’s smoking, oral hygiene, systemic diseases or failure to attend follow-up examinations may also affect the outcome.
For this reason, Turkish courts generally distinguish between:
a medical complication, and
a preventable result caused by negligent or improper treatment.
The Patient Rights Regulation expressly requires healthcare professionals to provide the medical care required by the patient’s condition. It also requires patients to be informed about alternative treatments, risks and possible complications.
The Medical Deontology Regulation similarly requires dentists to exercise maximum attention and care in examination and treatment.
Therefore, liability may arise when a dentist fails to exercise the professional care reasonably expected from a competent dentist under the circumstances.
Examples may include:
- placing an implant in an anatomically inappropriate position;
- damaging the inferior alveolar nerve;
- failing to properly assess bone structure before implant placement;
- failing to obtain necessary panoramic imaging or CBCT examinations;
- placing implants despite clear contraindications;
- using an inappropriate implant size or angle;
- perforating anatomical structures;
- improper crown or bridge positioning;
- producing an incorrect bite;
- unnecessary preparation or destruction of healthy teeth;
- performing excessive tooth reduction for veneers or crowns;
- failing to diagnose infection;
- failing to intervene when post-operative complications become apparent;
- using unsuitable materials;
- performing treatment outside the dentist’s professional competence;
- failing to conduct adequate follow-up; or
- failing to obtain valid informed consent.
Whether any of these circumstances actually amounts to malpractice is normally determined through expert evidence.
2. Implant Failure Does Not Automatically Mean the Dentist Is Liable
One of the most important misconceptions in dental malpractice cases is:
“The implant failed, therefore the dentist must have made a mistake.”
This is not necessarily correct.
Implant failure can occur for reasons unrelated to negligence.
Possible factors include:
- smoking;
- poor oral hygiene;
- uncontrolled diabetes;
- inadequate bone density;
- periodontal disease;
- bruxism;
- failure to follow post-operative instructions;
- biological rejection or failure of osseointegration; and
- subsequent trauma.
The legal question is therefore not merely whether the implant failed.
The question is:
Would the damage probably have been avoided if the dentist had acted in accordance with accepted medical and dental standards?
The distinction can become decisive in litigation.
In a 2023 decision involving dental implants and prosthetic treatment, the Court of Cassation examined evidence concerning broken implants, bone loss, poor oral hygiene and alternative explanations for the resulting problems. The decision illustrates why causation must be medically established rather than assumed merely from the existence of an unsuccessful result. Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, E. 2022/1460, K. 2023/1890, 17 May 2023.
For this reason, the patient’s condition should ideally be medically documented before extensive corrective treatment changes the evidence.
3. The Most Important Legal Distinction: Treatment or Promised Result?
Turkish Court of Cassation practice contains an important distinction concerning the contractual relationship between dentists and patients.
Ordinary medical treatment is generally evaluated under the principles applicable to a contract of mandate — vekâlet sözleşmesi.
Under such a relationship, the dentist normally undertakes to provide treatment carefully and professionally but does not guarantee biological success.
The Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers expressly stated in its decision dated 8 April 2021 that, where the patient consults the dentist for treatment of a dental health problem, the legal relationship is generally assessed according to the rules applicable to mandate contracts.
The same decision also recognized that where the procedure is not therapeutic but instead involves aesthetic intervention or an externally produced object such as a dental prosthesis, the relationship may constitute a contract for work — eser sözleşmesi. Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers, E. 2017/680, K. 2021/449.
This distinction can have major consequences in cosmetic dentistry.
4. Cosmetic Dental Treatment May Be Considered a Contract for Work
A contract for work under Article 470 et seq. of the Turkish Code of Obligations involves an undertaking to create a particular result.
This concept becomes especially relevant in procedures such as:
- dental veneers;
- porcelain crowns;
- dental prostheses;
- smile-design procedures;
- purely cosmetic reshaping;
- cosmetic replacement of visible teeth;
- certain implant-supported prosthetic procedures; and
- procedures where a specifically represented aesthetic result is promised.
The Court of Cassation has repeatedly classified dental prosthesis agreements as contracts for work.
For example, in its decision dated 8 September 2020, E. 2020/152, K. 2020/2335, the Court of Cassation 15th Civil Chamber expressly described a dental prosthesis agreement as a contract for work in a case seeking material and moral damages.
Earlier Court of Cassation decisions similarly evaluated disputes concerning dental prostheses within the framework of contracts for work.
This can strengthen the patient’s position where the dentist promised an objectively identifiable aesthetic result.
For example, imagine a patient is shown a digital smile design before treatment and is told that twenty porcelain veneers will produce a particular tooth shape, alignment and colour.
If the final work is materially different, technically defective or unusable, the dispute is not necessarily limited to whether the dentist exercised reasonable medical care.
The court may also examine whether the promised work itself was properly delivered.
5. Does Every Implant Treatment Constitute a Contract for Work?
No.
This distinction should not be oversimplified.
An implant can be placed primarily because a patient has lost a tooth and requires functional medical rehabilitation. In that situation, the treatment dimension may dominate.
Alternatively, implants may form part of an extensive cosmetic rehabilitation where the dentist promises a particular final dental appearance or prosthetic result.
Turkish legal scholarship also contains differing views on how implant treatment should be classified. Court of Cassation practice tends to distinguish therapeutic interventions from procedures centred on an aesthetic or technically determinable result. Academic analysis of Court of Cassation decisions likewise notes the classification of certain prosthetic and aesthetic dental procedures as contracts for work.
Therefore, the correct question is not simply:
“Was an implant used?”
Instead, the lawyer should ask:
“What exactly did the dentist undertake to achieve?”
The treatment proposal, written contract, WhatsApp correspondence, advertisements, digital simulations, photographs and statements made before treatment may become important evidence.
6. The Dentist’s Duty of Care Is Strict
Even where the relationship is classified as a mandate rather than a contract for work, the dentist is subject to a demanding professional duty of care.
The dentist must act according to:
- current medical knowledge;
- accepted dental standards;
- appropriate diagnostic procedures;
- the patient’s individual medical condition;
- professional ethical obligations; and
- reasonable follow-up requirements.
The Court of Cassation has traditionally applied a high standard of diligence to medical professionals because patients entrust them with bodily integrity and health.
Therefore, the dentist cannot defend a case merely by arguing:
“I never guaranteed success.”
A doctor may not guarantee biological success, but this does not remove the obligation to perform the procedure correctly.
7. Informed Consent Can Be as Important as Technical Malpractice
Dental malpractice is not limited to mistakes made during surgery.
A procedure may have been technically performed according to medical standards but still create legal liability if the patient was not properly informed.
Under Article 15 of the Patient Rights Regulation, the patient must be informed about matters including:
- the nature and course of the medical condition;
- how the procedure will be performed;
- alternative treatments;
- benefits and risks;
- possible complications; and
- relevant consequences of refusing treatment.
Article 22 also establishes the principle that a patient cannot be subjected to a medical intervention without consent except in circumstances specifically permitted by law.
Therefore, simply obtaining the patient’s signature on a standard form does not necessarily end the legal inquiry.
The key question is whether the patient was actually and adequately informed.
Consider an implant placed close to the mandibular nerve.
If permanent numbness is a recognised material risk of the procedure, the court may examine whether the patient was properly informed about that risk.
Similarly, before aggressive preparation of healthy teeth for cosmetic crowns, the dentist should explain the consequences of irreversible removal of tooth structure and realistic alternative treatments.
8. “You Signed the Consent Form” Is Not Always a Complete Defence
Dental clinics frequently rely on pre-printed consent forms.
However, a generic consent form containing dozens of medical risks may not necessarily establish that the patient received adequate individualised information.
The regulation requires information to be provided in a manner the patient can understand and generally requires the healthcare professional carrying out the procedure to provide the relevant explanation.
Accordingly, the court can examine:
- when the form was signed;
- who explained the treatment;
- whether alternatives were discussed;
- whether specific material risks were identified;
- whether the patient was given sufficient time to decide; and
- whether the actual procedure corresponded to the procedure consented to.
This issue becomes particularly significant in elective cosmetic dentistry because there is usually no medical emergency requiring immediate treatment.
9. What Damages Can a Patient Claim?
Where malpractice is established, several types of compensation may become available.
Refund of the Treatment Fee
If the dental work is defective or unusable, the patient may seek reimbursement of all or part of the amount paid.
The correct amount depends on whether some portions of the treatment provided genuine medical benefit.
Court of Cassation decisions concerning dental prostheses demonstrate that courts may distinguish between defective prosthetic work and other treatment that was properly performed rather than automatically ordering reimbursement of every payment made.
Cost of Corrective Treatment
This is frequently one of the most important claims.
A patient may require:
- implant removal;
- bone grafting;
- sinus-lift treatment;
- new implants;
- replacement crowns;
- root canal treatment;
- periodontal treatment;
- nerve treatment;
- orthodontic correction; or
- treatment by another specialist.
Reasonable future medical expenses causally connected with the malpractice may form part of the material damages claim.
Loss of Earnings
If the patient is temporarily unable to work because of corrective surgery or complications, documented loss of income may be claimed where the necessary legal requirements are satisfied.
Permanent Disability or Loss of Function
Serious dental malpractice can cause permanent bodily injury.
Examples include permanent nerve damage, chronic neuropathic pain, loss of jaw function or extensive loss of teeth.
If the injury affects earning capacity or creates permanent functional impairment, additional compensation issues may arise.
Additional Expenses
Transportation, medication, diagnostic imaging and medically necessary additional treatment expenses may also be relevant if properly documented.
10. Can the Patient Claim Moral Damages?
Yes.
Malpractice can interfere directly with bodily integrity, appearance and psychological well-being.
This is especially relevant where the patient experiences:
- chronic pain;
- permanent facial numbness;
- visible cosmetic deformity;
- loss of teeth;
- difficulty eating;
- difficulty speaking;
- prolonged corrective surgeries;
- embarrassment caused by defective cosmetic dentistry; or
- permanent changes to appearance.
Under the Turkish Code of Obligations, infringement of bodily integrity may support a claim for non-pecuniary compensation.
The amount is determined according to the individual circumstances rather than according to a fixed tariff.
The court may consider the seriousness and permanence of the injury, duration of treatment, degree of fault and effect on the patient’s everyday life.
11. The Patient Should Obtain the Entire Dental File Immediately
Evidence preservation is critical.
Article 16 of the Patient Rights Regulation gives patients the right to inspect their medical records and obtain copies.
A patient considering litigation should therefore request:
- patient file;
- treatment plan;
- consent forms;
- panoramic X-rays;
- CBCT scans;
- periapical radiographs;
- photographs;
- implant specifications;
- implant serial or lot information where available;
- laboratory records;
- crown and prosthesis documentation;
- prescriptions;
- invoices;
- payment receipts;
- appointment records; and
- clinical notes.
The request should ideally be made in a provable manner.
Waiting too long can create serious evidentiary problems.
12. Do Not Destroy the Evidence Through Immediate Corrective Treatment
Patients experiencing severe pain naturally want the problem corrected immediately.
Medical necessity must come first.
However, where circumstances permit, the condition should be documented before major corrective treatment.
Useful evidence may include:
- a second dentist’s detailed examination report;
- radiographs;
- CT imaging;
- intraoral photographs;
- clinical measurements; and
- written identification of failed implants or prosthetic defects.
Once failed implants are removed and the entire prosthetic system is replaced, determining exactly what went wrong can become much more difficult.
This issue is reflected in Court of Cassation case law where the passage of time, oral hygiene and subsequent changes made it difficult to determine the precise cause of implant and prosthetic problems.
13. An Independent Expert Report Is Usually the Core of the Case
A malpractice lawsuit cannot normally be won merely by submitting photographs showing unattractive teeth.
The court needs expert analysis.
Depending on the allegations, the expert panel may need expertise in:
- oral and maxillofacial surgery;
- prosthodontics;
- periodontology;
- endodontics;
- restorative dentistry; or
- orthodontics.
The expert should examine not merely the final appearance but the entire treatment process.
Key questions include:
- Was the initial diagnosis correct?
- Was the treatment medically indicated?
- Were sufficient radiological examinations performed?
- Was implant placement technically appropriate?
- Was the prosthetic design correct?
- Was occlusion properly established?
- Were healthy teeth unnecessarily damaged?
- Were complications recognised and treated on time?
- Was the patient properly informed?
- Did the patient’s own conduct contribute to the outcome?
- What corrective treatment is required?
- Is the damage temporary or permanent?
- What is the causal relationship between the dentist’s conduct and the final injury?
A report that answers only “the dentist is at fault” or “there is no fault” without scientific reasoning may be challenged as inadequate.
14. Who Can Be Sued: The Dentist or the Clinic?
Potential defendants may include:
- the treating dentist;
- the dental clinic;
- the oral and dental health centre;
- the private hospital operating the dental unit; and
- where legally applicable, the professional liability insurer.
The correct defendants depend on the contractual and corporate structure.
A common mistake is to sue only the dentist even though the payment was made to a corporate clinic and the healthcare service was provided under the clinic’s organisation.
Conversely, suing only the clinic may be insufficient where direct professional fault of the dentist is relevant.
The contractual documents, invoices, facility licence and identity of the person who performed each procedure should therefore be examined before litigation.
15. Which Court Has Jurisdiction for a Private Dental Clinic?
Where an individual patient obtains dental treatment from a private clinic for personal purposes, the relationship will generally qualify as a consumer transaction under Law No. 6502.
The Consumer Protection Law broadly includes service contracts, mandate contracts and contracts for work within the concept of consumer transactions.
Therefore, disputes involving private hospitals, private dental clinics and dentists providing services within a consumer relationship are generally heard before the Consumer Court.
Where no separate Consumer Court exists, the designated civil court hears the matter in the capacity of a Consumer Court.
This distinction is important because filing before the wrong court can substantially delay the case.
16. What If the Treatment Was Performed at a Public Hospital?
The procedural route is different where the allegedly defective dental service was provided by a public hospital or public university hospital.
Claims arising from public healthcare services will generally fall within administrative law principles and may require an application against the relevant public administration followed by proceedings before the Administrative Court.
The distinction between:
private healthcare provider, and
public healthcare provider
should therefore be determined at the beginning of the case.
The defendant, procedural prerequisites and limitation issues may differ substantially.
17. Consumer Arbitration Committee or Consumer Court?
The amount claimed is important.
For 2026, consumer disputes with a value below TRY 186,000 fall within the jurisdiction of Consumer Arbitration Committees. The Ministry of Trade confirmed this threshold for applications made in 2026.
Claims above that level cannot ordinarily be decided by the Consumer Arbitration Committee and may need to proceed through the court system.
Dental malpractice cases involving corrective treatment and moral damages frequently exceed this amount.
The total value and exact legal nature of the claims should therefore be calculated before proceedings are commenced.
18. Is Mediation Required Before Filing the Lawsuit?
For consumer disputes that will be litigated before a Consumer Court, mandatory mediation generally applies before filing the lawsuit, subject to the statutory exceptions.
Article 73/A of Law No. 6502 establishes pre-action mediation as a procedural requirement for Consumer Court disputes, while excluding matters falling within the Consumer Arbitration Committee’s jurisdiction and certain other categories.
Therefore, a substantial private-clinic dental malpractice claim will commonly require an application for mandatory mediation before the compensation lawsuit is filed.
This stage can also provide an opportunity for settlement where the clinic’s insurer participates.
19. A Practical Example
Assume a patient attends a private clinic in Istanbul for a complete aesthetic smile reconstruction.
The clinic proposes:
- 8 implants;
- 20 zirconium crowns; and
- a digitally designed final smile.
After treatment:
- two implants become mobile;
- one implant damages a nerve;
- several crowns do not fit correctly;
- the patient’s bite becomes painful;
- the patient develops chronic numbness;
- another clinic recommends removing four implants and replacing the prosthetic work.
The legal strategy should not begin merely by alleging:
“The treatment was bad.”
Instead, the case should be built systematically.
First, all medical records and radiographs should be obtained.
Second, the patient’s existing condition should be independently documented.
Third, the original treatment plan and aesthetic representations should be preserved.
Fourth, a specialist should determine whether the implants were incorrectly placed and whether the prosthetic work complies with accepted standards.
Fifth, the costs of medically necessary corrective treatment should be documented.
Finally, the claim can be structured to include appropriate amounts for:
refund of defective treatment, corrective treatment expenses, other financial losses and moral damages arising from bodily injury.
If the cosmetic result was specifically promised, the contractual analysis concerning a contract for work may also become significant.
20. Common Mistakes Patients Should Avoid
Waiting Too Long
Medical evidence changes with time.
Implants move, bone changes, infections progress and subsequent treatment can alter the original condition.
Relying Only on Photographs
Photographs may demonstrate aesthetic dissatisfaction but rarely establish technical malpractice by themselves.
Throwing Away Removed Implants or Prostheses
Where practicable, removed materials may become evidence.
Accepting Verbal Explanations Without Documentation
Statements such as:
“Your body rejected the implant”
should not automatically be accepted without medical analysis.
Signing a Broad Settlement Without Understanding It
A clinic may offer free corrective treatment in exchange for a release of liability.
The long-term consequences should be evaluated before signing.
Focusing Only on the Treatment Fee
In serious cases, the cost of future reconstruction and permanent bodily injury may be far more important than the amount originally paid.
21. What Evidence Makes a Dental Malpractice Case Stronger?
The strongest cases usually contain objective evidence rather than subjective dissatisfaction.
Particularly valuable evidence can include:
- pre-treatment and post-treatment radiographs;
- CBCT images;
- photographs documenting the progression;
- treatment plans;
- written aesthetic promises;
- digital smile designs;
- invoices;
- independent specialist opinions;
- documented nerve injury;
- evidence of implant misplacement;
- evidence of unnecessary tooth preparation;
- repeated complaints immediately after treatment;
- proof that the clinic attempted multiple unsuccessful corrections; and
- clear documentation of future corrective-treatment costs.
WhatsApp conversations can also be highly important.
For example, messages in which the dentist states:
“The implants were placed at the wrong angle, but we can fix them”
may have significant evidentiary value when evaluated together with medical evidence.
22. Compensation Is Possible — But the Case Must Be Built Medically
Dental malpractice litigation is ultimately a combination of medicine and law.
An attractive photograph showing the patient’s former smile and an unattractive photograph showing the result may be emotionally powerful, but courts require more.
A successful case generally needs to establish:
duty + breach of professional or contractual obligation + damage + causation.
For ordinary therapeutic treatment, the central issue will often be whether the dentist exercised the required professional care.
For aesthetic dentistry or prosthetic work involving a specific promised outcome, the analysis may additionally focus on whether the promised result was properly delivered.
Court of Cassation case law expressly distinguishes these categories. Therapeutic dental interventions are generally assessed under mandate principles, while aesthetic interventions and dental prostheses may constitute contracts for work.
Conclusion: A Failed Implant Is Not Always Malpractice — But “It Was Just a Complication” Is Not Always a Defence
The fact that dental treatment has failed does not automatically establish negligence.
Medicine involves unavoidable risks.
However, dentists and dental clinics cannot categorise every bad result as an unavoidable complication.
If the treatment was improperly planned, an implant was technically misplaced, healthy teeth were unnecessarily damaged, recognised complications were ignored, adequate follow-up was not provided or valid informed consent was never obtained, compensation may be available under Turkish law.
The legal position may be even stronger in cosmetic dentistry where the clinic undertook to produce an objectively identifiable aesthetic or prosthetic result.
For a patient considering a claim, the most important practical steps are therefore:
preserve the medical evidence, obtain the complete dental file, secure an independent specialist assessment, identify the correct dentist and clinic, document the cost of corrective treatment and determine the correct procedural route before commencing proceedings.
Dental malpractice claims are rarely won simply because the final smile looks different from what the patient expected.
They are won by demonstrating, through medical evidence and careful legal analysis, where the treatment departed from professional standards, what result was promised, what damage occurred and how that damage should now be compensated.
This article provides general information concerning Turkish law as of August 2026 and does not constitute legal advice. Every dental malpractice case should be assessed individually according to the treatment records, radiological evidence, consent documents, expert medical findings and the circumstances of the patient.
No Responses