A dentist in the Hampshire area

3. Miss A complains about the care and treatment she received from the Practice on 27 November 2020.

4. She explains a dentist at the Practice was not prepared ahead of her treatment to remove her upper left eight (UL8) tooth and ‘tugged’ at her face for an excessive amount of time, to the point where it split her mouth, and cracked her bottom left wisdom tooth (LL8). She says her LL8 subsequently caused her a lot of pain.

5. Miss A says she was left in an excessive amount of pain because of the failings from her original treatment in November 2020, until her corrective treatment in July 2021. Miss A would like financial compensation because of the sustained issues following this dental appointment.

6. Miss A requested to have her UL8 removed because it was cracked. Prior to Miss A’s UL8 extraction on 27 November 2020, we can see from historic medical records she had no direct issues with her LL8 prior to the treatment. However, her records show that all adjacent teeth to the LL8 had been compromised to some extent in the past. We can see from medical records she was also informed, during an emergency consultation on her UL8, that they would not be doing a full check of her teeth or providing treatment for any other tooth that may have required work.

Cracked LL8 tooth

9. Miss A complains the Practice cracked her LL8 during her UL8 extraction. Miss A told us the failings from this extraction led to an array of issues. We are sorry to hear about the issues she suffered after the extraction. She requested compensation for this as her desired outcome.

10. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen based on evidence provided to us. We have done this, and we have not found any indications something has gone wrong.

11. The GDC guidance says dentists should offer good quality care. We recognise sometimes known risks of procedures occur, but that does not always mean the care fell below the standard of good care. If a complication is not a known risk and was avoidable, that might indicate care that was not in line with the GDC guidance.

12. While it may be possible that Miss A’s cracked tooth was an unfortunate side effect of her UL8 extraction, we can see evidence in her records that the dentist discussed that risk and she consented to the treatment, along with any risks associated with it.

13. We have looked at the evidence in Miss A’s medical records and considered what she told us. X-rays from before Miss A’s treatment, and the records of the extraction, do not tell us the condition of the LL8 tooth before the procedure. Having thought about all the evidence, it is difficult to say the damage happened because of poor care.

14. Based on all the evidence, it seems more likely than not that the cracked tooth happened because of the accepted complication of the procedure. This indicates the Practice acted in line with the GDC guidance to provide good care and indicates there were no failings.

1. We have carefully considered Miss A’s complaint about a dentist in the Hampshire area (the Practice). We have decided after careful assessment, there are no indications of failings. Miss A experienced damage to her tooth, and this is a known risk of the procedure she had. The evidence does not indicate the damage happened because of a failing in care.

2. We were sorry to hear about Miss A’s experience during an emergency treatment she received. We appreciate she suffered a cracked tooth and had a difficult time because of this.