The rapid growth of dental tourism in Turkey has placed Istanbul and other major cities among the most frequently visited destinations for procedures such as dental implants, porcelain veneers, laminate coatings, smile design treatments, and full-mouth restorations. While the overwhelming majority of these procedures are performed without incident, a growing number of patients — both domestic and foreign — have experienced outcomes that fall short of the agreed standard, giving rise to legal disputes and compensation claims. Turkish law provides a well-developed framework for holding dental practitioners accountable when their work causes harm, and the rights available to an aggrieved patient are broader than many assume.
The legal basis for dental malpractice claims in Turkey rests primarily on the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, supplemented by the Law on the Practice of Medicine and Its Branches No. 1219, the Patient Rights Regulation issued under the Ministry of Health, and the Turkish Medical Association’s Code of Professional Ethics. These instruments collectively define the standard of care expected of dental practitioners and establish the conditions under which liability arises. Relevant Court of Cassation decisions have further refined the framework, particularly in distinguishing between the different types of legal relationships that may exist between a dentist and a patient depending on the nature of the procedure performed.
The Distinction Between the Mandate Contract and the Works Contract
One of the most consequential legal questions in any dental malpractice dispute in Turkey is the nature of the contractual relationship between the patient and the practitioner. Turkish law draws a fundamental distinction between two types of agreements, each carrying different liability standards and different sets of remedies.
Routine dental treatment — including fillings, root canals, extractions, and periodontal therapy — is classified under the mandate contract framework governed by Article 502 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. Under this framework, the dentist does not undertake to achieve a specific outcome but is instead obligated to perform the treatment with the diligence and competence expected of a professional in the field. A patient who undergoes root canal treatment cannot bring a successful claim simply because the pain persists; liability will only arise if the practitioner failed to apply the required standard of professional care.
Article 502 of the Turkish Code of Obligations: A mandate contract is a contract whereby the agent undertakes to manage an affair or perform a transaction on behalf of the principal. The agent is obliged to perform the mandate personally and with the care of a prudent manager.
Cosmetic and prosthetic dental procedures occupy a different legal position. Where the dentist undertakes to produce a specific result — as is the case with dental implants, crowns, bridges, prostheses, porcelain laminate veneers, and smile design treatments — the relationship is governed by the works contract framework under Article 470 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. In a works contract, the contractor assumes an obligation not merely of effort but of result. If the agreed outcome is not achieved, the contractor bears liability irrespective of whether negligence can be proven in the conventional sense.
Article 470 of the Turkish Code of Obligations: A works contract is a contract whereby the contractor undertakes to produce a work and the principal undertakes to pay a price in return for the work.
The Court of Cassation has confirmed this distinction explicitly, holding in its decisions — including the ruling of the 15th Civil Chamber referenced as E. 2006/4800, K. 2007/5945 — that dental treatment falls under the mandate contract while dental prosthetics and cosmetic applications fall under the works contract. The practical consequence is significant: a patient who paid for a porcelain laminate veneer that cracked, discolored, or fell off within a short period can assert a claim based on defective work without needing to prove that the dentist acted negligently. The failure of the result itself is the basis of the claim.
Informed Consent as a Standalone Ground for Liability
Regardless of whether the procedure falls under the mandate or works contract framework, the obligation to obtain valid informed consent from the patient is a cornerstone of dental malpractice law in Turkey. The Patient Rights Regulation requires that the patient be given a comprehensive explanation of the planned procedure, the anticipated outcomes, the known risks and possible complications, the alternative treatment options available, and the expected cost before any intervention begins. This explanation must be given in a manner the patient can understand, and the patient’s written consent must be obtained before the procedure is initiated.
The burden of proving that informed consent was properly obtained rests with the dental practitioner or the clinic, not with the patient. This allocation of the burden of proof is well established in both the Patient Rights Regulation and in Court of Cassation case law. If the dental practitioner cannot produce a properly completed written consent form that accurately reflects the information conveyed to the patient, the absence of valid consent may itself constitute grounds for a malpractice claim, even if the procedure was otherwise performed to an acceptable technical standard.
In cosmetic dental procedures, the informed consent obligation is particularly demanding. The dentist is expected to explain not only the risks of the procedure itself but also the aesthetic expectations that can realistically be achieved, the lifespan of the materials used, the maintenance required, and any contraindications arising from the patient’s oral health condition. Where a patient has been shown photographs or computer-generated simulations of the expected result as part of the consultation process, these representations may create an additional contractual commitment, especially under the works contract framework, if the final outcome deviates materially from what was shown.
Common Grounds for Dental Cosmetic Malpractice Claims
The most frequently litigated dental cosmetic malpractice scenarios in Turkey involve failures in implant procedures, defective prostheses and crowns, substandard laminate veneer applications, and complications arising from smile design treatments. Each of these areas presents distinct patterns of legal dispute.
In implant cases, common grounds for claims include the placement of an implant without adequate pre-operative bone density assessment, failure to identify or account for anatomical structures such as the inferior alveolar nerve or the maxillary sinus, use of substandard implant materials, failure to maintain sterile conditions, and inadequate post-operative follow-up that allows infection or implant failure to develop undetected. Nerve damage following implant surgery is among the most serious complications and can support a substantial claim for both material and moral compensation.
Laminate veneer and crown-related disputes frequently arise when the underlying tooth preparation is performed excessively or incorrectly, when the bonding material is applied without adequate isolation, or when the color, shape, or bite alignment of the final restoration does not correspond to what was agreed. Because laminate veneers and porcelain crowns involve irreversible modification of natural tooth structure, a failed result cannot simply be undone, and the patient may face permanent alteration of healthy teeth in addition to the cosmetic failure itself.
Smile design cases often involve disagreements about the aesthetic outcome, with patients arguing that the final appearance does not match what was presented or promised during the consultation phase. These disputes require careful examination of any documentation produced before the procedure — including digital smile simulations, photographs, and written treatment plans — as these materials may establish the scope of the practitioner’s commitment under the works contract.
Duties of the Dental Practitioner and Common Failures
Turkish law imposes a detailed set of obligations on dental practitioners that apply both before and after any cosmetic procedure. Pre-procedurally, the dentist must take a complete medical history, assess the patient’s general health and oral condition, order appropriate radiological examinations, formulate a suitable treatment plan, and fully inform the patient as described above. During the procedure, the practitioner must maintain sterile conditions, use appropriate equipment, employ only materials of established quality, and ensure that qualified auxiliary personnel are present where required. Post-procedurally, the dentist must provide adequate follow-up care, monitor the patient’s recovery, respond promptly to complications, and maintain complete and accurate clinical records.
Failures in record-keeping deserve particular attention because dental malpractice disputes are resolved almost entirely on the basis of documentary evidence. A practitioner who cannot produce complete clinical records, pre-operative radiographs, consent forms, treatment plans, and laboratory orders for custom prosthetic work will find it extremely difficult to defend against a well-documented patient claim. Courts and expert witnesses assess the practitioner’s conduct against the available record, and unexplained gaps in documentation are routinely treated as evidence adverse to the practitioner.
The Role of Expert Witnesses and the Evidentiary Process
Because dental malpractice disputes involve highly technical questions of clinical judgment and procedural standards, courts are almost universally reliant on expert witnesses to reach a conclusion on the merits. Under the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure, the court appoints an expert or a panel of experts — typically from the faculty of a university dental school or from the relevant professional body — to examine the available clinical records, review radiological images, and where appropriate, conduct a clinical examination of the patient.
The expert’s report addresses whether the practitioner’s conduct conformed to the standards expected of a reasonably competent dentist performing the same type of procedure under comparable conditions, whether any deviation from those standards caused or contributed to the patient’s harm, and the nature and extent of the injury sustained. In cosmetic cases falling under the works contract framework, the expert may also assess whether the completed work meets the objective standard of a properly finished dental restoration, regardless of whether a more specific professional standard was breached.
The expert’s findings are not formally binding on the judge, but they carry decisive weight in practice. A patient who disagrees with the conclusions of the court-appointed expert may request a supplementary opinion, challenge the expert’s qualifications or methodology, or submit an independent evaluation obtained from another qualified dental professional. The Court of Cassation has on several occasions reversed lower court decisions where the judge failed to adequately address the patient’s objections to a flawed expert report.
Compensation and Patient Remedies
A patient who successfully establishes a dental malpractice claim under Turkish law may be entitled to a range of remedies depending on whether the legal basis is the works contract or the mandate contract. In works contract cases involving defective cosmetic or prosthetic work, the patient may choose between demanding that the work be redone without charge, requiring the practitioner to repair the defect at no cost, or claiming a proportional reduction in the price already paid. If none of these remedies is adequate, or if the patient has lost confidence in the practitioner, the patient may withdraw from the contract and demand a refund of all amounts paid. These remedies may be pursued independently of or alongside a compensation claim.
Compensation for dental malpractice may include material damages covering the cost of corrective treatment by another practitioner, medical expenses incurred as a result of the complication, loss of earnings during any period of incapacity, and any other financial losses that are causally linked to the practitioner’s failure. Moral compensation may also be claimed where the patient has experienced physical pain, emotional distress, disfigurement, or impairment of daily function as a result of the malpractice. Turkish courts assess moral compensation claims with reference to the severity and duration of the suffering, the degree of fault attributable to the practitioner, and the economic capacity of the parties.
Under Turkish law, dental practitioners are required to carry mandatory professional liability insurance known as malpractis sigortası. This insurance covers compensation amounts up to the policy limits in the event of a successful malpractice claim. The patient’s right to compensation from the insurer arises directly once a court judgment is issued against the insured practitioner.
Statute of Limitations
The time limits for bringing a dental malpractice claim vary according to the setting in which the procedure was performed. For procedures carried out at a private dental clinic or in the practitioner’s own office, the standard limitation period is five years from the date on which the patient became aware of the damage and its likely cause. Where the practitioner’s fault is classified as gross negligence, this period extends to twenty years from the date on which the harmful act occurred.
For procedures performed at a public hospital or a state university hospital, the claim must be pursued through an administrative full remedy action before the administrative courts. In this context, the patient or their representative must submit a written application to the relevant authority within one year of learning of the damage. If the authority rejects the claim or fails to respond within sixty days, the patient must file the administrative lawsuit within sixty days of that decision or the expiry of the response period.
Medical Malpractice Lawyer in Istanbul – Attorney Ozan Soylu
Attorney Ozan Soylu is a practicing lawyer based in Istanbul, advising patients in dental and medical malpractice disputes, compensation claims, and patient rights proceedings under Turkish law. His practice covers the full range of health law litigation, including claims arising from cosmetic dental procedures performed at private clinics and hospital settings, representation in both civil courts and administrative proceedings, and legal assessment of treatment records and expert opinions.
For all legal matters concerning Turkish law, you can reach out to Attorney Ozan Soylu. Legal consultancy and representation services are provided with a dedicated approach for foreign nationals. To submit your questions, contact us.
Leave a Comment