Summary
Mr C complained about cosmetic dental treatment he received at a dental hospital between 2007 and 2010. Mr C initially underwent oral hygiene treatment, and then had surgical crown lengthening treatment to improve the appearance of his upper front teeth and his gum line. He had temporary crowns fitted at this time with a view to having permanent crowns fitted once the gum line had fully healed.
Mr C was dissatisfied with the outcome of the surgery, and the consultant responsible for his treatment agreed to carry out the procedure a second time. Mr C remained dissatisfied with the aesthetic outcome, and had a number of complaints about several aspects of his treatment.
He complained that his care and treatment was inadequate; that some information about his treatment was incorrect; and that his complaint was not properly responded to.
We did not uphold any of Mr C's complaints about his treatment. We found that Mr C's treatment plan was consistent throughout; that Mr C's oral hygiene had improved as a result of his treatment; that there was no evidence to show Mr C had received inadequate care and treatment. We found that there appeared to have been an element of miscommunication in relation to some of the issues which arose during Mr C's treatment.
We did uphold Mr C's complaint that the board had failed to advise him of the SPSO, as our contact details were not included within their final letter to Mr C. We will bring this failing to the attention of the board to prevent recurrence.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201101343 as a PDF (14.3 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018