Metadiscourse is essential in creating and organizing persuasive discourse, taking into account the norms and expectations of parties involved. The purpose of this study is to explore the use of interactional (interpersonal) metadiscourse markers in dentistry case reports, analyze their functions within the text, and evaluate their effectiveness in establishing the writer's credibility and authority in managing textual interactions. The research material included a collection of 60 clinical case reports sourced from special dentistry journals for 2017 – 2022. The larges share of all lexical interactional metadiscourse markers is represented by hedges, attitude markers are nearly one-third as much, while self-mentioned markers, and, especially, boosters and engagement markers are underrepresented. Deliberate, cautious expressions of scientific claims mainly achieved in the dentistry case reports by using hedges can bring in establishing credibility more than authoritative stances. The prevalence of hedges can be a way for dental professionals to indicate that their statements are not absolute or definitive. This is particularly important in a field like dentistry, where there may be multiple treatment options or varying levels of certainty about diagnoses. Attitude markers are used to evoke agreement among readers and create a sense of shared understanding, drawing the readers into a collaborative framework of agreement. Boosters as signals of confidence and certainty in the claims being made and engagement markers that propagate the author’s view are barely present in the dentistry case reports. Most of the interactional markers are located in the Discussion and Conclusion sections.