Background and Purpose: Since this research project is a descriptive study and is an applied study, it can be helpful to analytical considerations in this respect. There is a dearth of research on this topic, therefore, few comprehensive studies exist in our chosen domain and the need for further studies of this type are clearly felt. In addition to providing information on the present condition of the number of files and cases of complaints in medical legislation, this study can illuminate the scope of medical law and the responsibility of the medical doctors.Materials and Methods: The researcher went to the center of Medical litigation in Tehran province and examined the complaints of the patients from 2003-2007. She made a comprehensive study of the files and considered the complaints made against dentists in the processes of surgery. The data obtained were then analyze and scrutinized.Findings: Among the 57 files which from 2003-2007were opened in treatment of surgery of jaw and mouth in Tehran's Medical legislation. Most complaints (%84) were about male dentists, %12/3 of which were because of fractures in jaw, %10/5 were about numbness of jaw, %7 were because of opening in sinus, %5/3 were because of entering the tooth into the sinus, %12/3 were because of the infection of jaw, %21/1 because of the mistaken excavation of the tooth, %8/8 were because of not preparing the radiographic, %3/5 were because of post-surgery bleeding, %7 were because of harm to the adjacent tooth, %5/3 were because of breaking tuberosity, %14 were because of pains after tooth excavation, and finally%8/8 were because of implant break. According to Medical legislation's report in 33 percents of the cases, the dentists were. cleared of the charges and in%67 they became convicted.Conclusion: According to reports received from the Legal Medicine Institution, there has Been an increase in individuals' referring in order to attend to the referees' problems and in treatment dissatisfaction in recent years. The most interesting and the most challenging decisions of Commissions was that in approximately one third of cases that the upper molar tooth entered the jaw sinus space when being pulled, the dentist has been acquitted and in about%85 of cases anesthesia has resulted in dentist's conviction which it seems controversial scientifically. Also, about%84 of cases of jaw fracture and jaw anesthesia resulted from the fault of dentist, lack of expertise and experience, and choosing patient incorrectly. It is worthy to note that most of jaw fractures and jaw anesthesia had occurred in Mandible. In case of existence of pain after pulling the tooth, the probability of conviction is zero.