A dental practice in the Nottinghamshire area

3. Mrs P complains about the care and treatment she had from the Practice. She complains:

• despite having an emergency appointment on 29 January 2023, she was left waiting in pain for 6 weeks until 22 February before having a crown removed • root canal treatment on 14 March was unsuccessful and meant she ended up having to have the tooth extracted (removed) • the extraction caused discomfort, swelling and bruising on her face • it also caused her left back molar to crack and meant she needed another extraction.

4. Mrs P says she was left in pain longer than she should have been, she felt traumatised at having to have two teeth removed and she was left in discomfort. She says she has been left terrified of going for more treatment.

5. Mrs P wants a financial payment of £3,000.

6. Mrs P started getting severe pain from her teeth in January 2023 and had an emergency appointment with the Practice on 29 January. During the appointment, the dentist said her crown was resting on a nerve and she would need root canal treatment.

7. The dentist booked an appointment for the 22 February 2023 to have the crown removed and to start root canal treatment.

8. During her second root canal appointment on 14 March, the dentist told Mrs P the treatment could not be completed and the tooth was extracted.

9. Mrs P returned to the Practice for an appointment one week later because she had developed a dry socket infection from the tooth extraction (this is a common complication caused by blood failing to clot in the tooth socket). The dentist prescribed antibiotics.

10. During a routine check-up on 14 August her new dentist told Mrs P there was a crack in another tooth that would need root canal treatment and either a crown or extraction. Mrs P had the tooth extracted.

11. Mrs P complained to the Practice on 16 March. The Practice sent its final complaint response on 3 October.

13. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we think this is unreasonable in the circumstances. We have discussed this with Mrs P to understand the circumstances and outcomes she wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look into.

14. Mrs P says the Practice was negligent in its care and treatment, its treatment was the cause of her pain and distress for three months and caused her to lose two teeth.

15. Mrs P wants a payment of £3,000 to cover the cost of dental implant treatment. She has not told us about any barriers that would make it difficult or stop her from exploring legal action. She is also within the three-year time limit to make a legal claim.

16. Miss P wants a payment that is more than what we would generally recommend in the circumstances. A court would be able to carefully consider if there has been clinical negligence and decide on an appropriate amount of compensation for the impact Mrs P describes.

17. We think it is reasonable for Mrs P to get legal advice. We hope this information helps Mrs P to progress her complaint and achieve the outcome she is looking for.

18. If Mrs P is not able to take legal action, she may come back to us and we will see if we can investigate her complaint.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs P’s complaint about a dental practice in the Nottinghamshire area (the Practice). We are very sorry to hear about the circumstances of her complaint and the ongoing impact this has had on her.

2. We have decided not to consider Mrs P’s complaint further because we think it is reasonable for Mrs P to look into legal action.