Summary
Ms C, a voluntary agency worker, complained on behalf of Mr A that the dental treatment he had received was inadequate. Ms C said Mr A believed the treatment he had received had contributed to tooth decay in his mouth. Mr A asked for compensation for the treatment he said he received.
We took independent dental advice, which stated that Mr A had not received the appropriate dental treatment. The advice noted that Mr A had been fitted with a bridge which had only been partially attached, as it had been supported by only one tooth, rather than two, as would normally be the case. The advice said the bridge was, therefore, always likely to fail. The advice noted, however, that Mr A had not maintained the appropriate level of oral hygiene or attended review appointments which were essential for preventing tooth decay following the fitting of bridge work. The advice stated that on balance, Mr A's dental treatment had been unreasonable, since a bridge should only have been fitted if it could be fully attached.
We found that Mr A's treatment was unreasonable, and he should, therefore, have the cost of his dental treatment refunded.
Recommendations
We recommended that the dentist: refund Mr A the cost of the dental treatment; provide evidence that the dentist has reflected on the failures in Mr A's care identified in the investigation; and apologise for the failings identified in this report.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201601001 as a PDF (12.93 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018