A dental practice in the Staffordshire Moorlands area

2. Miss O complains about the care provided to her by the Practice when it extracted her tooth. Miss O complains the Practice;

• unnecessarily removed a healthy tooth, UL7 • poorly communicated any problems with tooth UL7 and did not get consent before its extraction • did not allow enough time for the anaesthetic to start working before the second extraction of tooth UL6 • did not conduct its complaint investigation fairly as it allowed the Dentist responsible for her care to investigate

3. Miss O told us she was in more pain than was clinically necessary during the extractions, and she was extremely distressed by the unexpected removal of two teeth. Miss O had to come off her rheumatoid arthritis medication for a longer period to allow the bigger gap to heal, this caused an arthritis flare up of about a month. Miss O also told us she was denied a fair investigation of her complaint.

4. Miss O told us as an outcome to her complaint; she is looking for service improvements to the Practice’s consent procedures. Miss O also told us she would like a financial remedy of £5,000.

5. Miss O went to the Practice on 16 May 2025 with pain in the upper left side of her mouth. X-ray scans of the teeth were taken, and Miss O was given antibiotics. Miss O called for an appointment on 4 June 2025 because her tooth pain was severe.

6. Miss O went to the Practice on 10 June 2025. Miss O had two teeth removed, tooth UL7 and tooth UL6.

Issue 1 - The Practice unnecessarily removed a healthy tooth, UL7

Issue 2 - The Practice poorly communicated any problems with tooth UL7 and did not get consent before its extraction

Issue 3 - The Practice did not allow enough time for the anaesthetic to start working before the second extraction of tooth UL6

10. The Law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has the option to take legal action, unless we consider the legal route is unreasonable to take in the complainant’s circumstances. We have discussed Miss O’s case with her to understand the outcomes she wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to.

11. Miss O told us about her complaint. She said she had an appointment at the Practice on 16 May 2025 where she reported pain in the upper left of her mouth. Miss O told us she had an X-ray and the Practice told her tooth UL6 needed root canal treatment or extraction. Miss O went to the Practice again on 4 June 2025. At this appointment, Miss O asked for tooth UL6 to be extracted.

12. On 10 June 2025, Miss O attended the Practice for her extraction. Miss O told us after the Practice removed tooth UL7 she became extremely upset and told the Practice it was the wrong tooth. She said the Practice told her tooth UL7 had an abscess. She says she was then injected with more anaesthetic and tooth UL6 was also extracted.

13. Miss O believes the Practice may have extracted a healthy tooth. Miss O said if UL7 was an unhealthy tooth, the Practice did not make enough effort to explain this before removing it.

14. We consider Miss O may have a potential clinical negligence claim. In law, this is when the actions, or non-actions, of a health care professional do not meet the level of care expected. This then results in physical injury, psychological injury, or loss.

15. Miss O experienced physical injury because of her tooth extraction; she told us a healthy tooth was removed, she now has a bigger gap in her teeth than planned, and she had a flare up of arthritis.

16. Miss O said will need to get implants or dentures for the gap. She told us she also experienced psychological injury as she was extremely upset during the extraction, and this has left her with trauma. She said she is now scared to go to a dentist again.

17. Miss O told us she is looking for a financial remedy of £5000; her approximation of the cost of implants. On our severity of injustice scale, this would fall into a level five.

18. Level five on our scale is where the complainant has experienced a marked and lasting detrimental impact which affects their ability to live a relatively normal life. The physiological impact will be a permanent minor disability, where major surgery could have been avoided, or where life expectancy has been worsened.

19. The impact Miss O describes to us does meet the criterion of level five on our scale. We would be unlikely to recommend the level of financial remedy Miss O seeks if we found failings.

20. The courts provide financial remedy for clinical negligence. The courts can normally achieve a higher amount than us. For the remedy Miss O is seeking, we consider that it is proportionate for Miss O to explore the legal route.

21. Miss O is also looking for the Practice to improve its consent procedures. Generally, most courts redress is financial. Other remedies in the form of apologies and service improvements may occur as a by-product of a legal claim.

We asked Miss O if she had any barriers to the legal route. Miss O told us she had no barriers and she was happy to speak to solicitors and lawyers about her complaint.

22. If Miss O is unsuccessful in her legal claim, or she still has outcomes the court does not achieve, she can ask us to consider her complaint again. She should bring her complaint back to us promptly. This is because we need to consider our time limit. Our time limit says complaints should be brought to us within one year of the person knowing they had reason to complain.

Issue 3 - The Practice did not conduct its complaint investigation fairly by allowing the Dentist responsible for the care to investigate

23. The complaint handling part of Miss O’s complaint would not form part of a clinical negligence case.

24. Miss O’s primary concern is the wrong removal of her tooth. We consider it would be proportionate for Miss O to explore her main concerns through the legal route first. If this complaint part remains outstanding after legal proceedings, and Miss O returns to us in a timely manner, we may be able to reconsider this complaint part.

Conclusion

25. We have seen there is a legal course of action available to Miss O and it is reasonable for her to take it. For this reason, we will be taking no further action on her case. We appreciate Miss O has been through a difficult time and is still suffering with the impact of having two teeth removed. We thank her for raising her concerns with us.

1. We have carefully considered Miss O’s complaint about a Dental Practice in Staffordshire (the Practice). We consider Miss O could take legal action on the matters she has brought to us.