A dentist has been erased after a patient seeking ‘Hollywood smile’ treatment was left with failing crowns and bridges, poorly restored teeth, gingivitis caused by ill-fitting restorations, retained roots, a fractured root, periapical pathology and bone loss.
The General Dental Council’s (GDC) Professional Conduct Committee found that the registrant failed to provide an adequate standard of care between August 2020 and August 2023, including failures in pre-treatment investigations, treatment planning, radiographic practice, discussing risks and diagnosing the need for further treatment.
It also found that the dentist provided a poor standard of treatment and care, failed to obtain informed consent, and failed to cooperate with GDC investigations by not providing sufficient evidence of indemnity and employment information.
The determination said the patient’s evidence was that they did not know they would receive full crowns rather than overlays and were not informed about the risks of the treatment.
The committee said actual and ongoing serious harm had been caused to the patient.
‘Lack of insight’
The registrant did not attend or have representation at the hearing. The committee noted that they had requested to be erased on multiple occasions, including a few days before the hearing.
The committee heard that the dentist was a director and registered manager of the practice. It found that the dentist knowingly permitted an unregistered and erased former dentist to practise dentistry at the practice and that clinical notes and treatment plans were signed in the dentist’s name.
The GDC’s expert witness said the dentist’s conduct fell ‘far below the standard expected’ of a registered dentist.
The committee said there was no evidence of insight, remorse or remediation. It also found a high risk of repetition and said the conduct suggested an attitudinal problem.
In its sanction decision, the committee said conditions would not protect the public or satisfy the public interest because the registrant was unlikely to comply with them.
It also said suspension would not be sufficient because there was no evidence that any period of suspension would change the dentist’s behaviour.
The committee said erasure was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction. It also imposed an immediate suspension order to cover the appeal period.
The dentist’s existing interim suspension orders were revoked because the substantive erasure and immediate suspension order had been imposed.
Follow Dentistry.co.uk on Instagram to keep up with all the latest dental news and trends.
