Select location
Membership information
0800 561 9000
Dentolegal advice
0800 561 1010
Menu
Refine my search

Difficult and deceitful dentistry

Post date: 15/07/2014 | Time to read article: 1 mins

The information within this article was correct at the time of publishing. Last updated 14/11/2018

Keeping patients informed of any negative developments in their treatment is always a better policy than trying to hide something for whatever reason...

Keeping patients informed of any negative developments in their treatment is always a better policy than trying to hide something for whatever reason...

A 56-year-old male patient attended his dentist complaining of pain. Widespread gingival recession in the upper left quadrant made the diagnosis difficult, but the dentist decided to root-treat the upper left first molar.

The treatment was carried out at a single visit during which a rotary file separated in the mesio-buccal canal. The patient was not informed as the dentist was confident that the canal was clean and the instrument would not cause any harm. The palatal canal was sealed using a low-temperature thermal obturation technique and there was significant extrusion of gutta-percha into the apical tissues. The practitioner was unable to access the distal canal.

The patient was in considerable discomfort the evening after the treatment and sought emergency care from a duty rota dentist. After taking an x-ray, the second dentist advised the patient that:

  • There had been an overfill of the palatal canal.
  • The distal canal had not been treated.
  • There was a separated instrument in the mesial canal, which was also protruding through the apex.

The patient received remedial treatment from a specialist and subsequently brought an action for negligence against the first dentist who had failed to tell the patient about the separated instrument and the untreated third canal. Although there was an overfill of the palatal canal, this was not treated by the specialist as it did not appear to compromise the long-term prognosis of the tooth at the time. The practitioner had used ultrasound with copious sodium hypochlorite and it was thought that further intervention of the palatal root was not necessary.

Learning point:
Information about a ‘difficult’ treatment should always be presented to the patient at the time of treatment together with suitable suggestions for its management. When the facts come to light in retrospect, at best they suggest bad dentistry, at worst a deceitful dentist.

These case studies are based on real events and provided here as guidance. They do not constitute legal advice but are published to help members better understand how they might deal with certain situations. This is just one of the many benefits dental members enjoy as part of their subscription. 
For more detailed advice on any issues, contact us

Share this article

Share
Load more reviews
Rating

You've already submitted a review for this item

|
New site feature tour

Introducing an improved
online experience

You'll notice a few things have changed on our website. After asking our members what they want in an online platform, we've made it easier to access our membership benefits and created a more personalised user experience.

Why not take our quick 60-second tour? We'll show you how it all works and it should only take a minute.

Take the tour Continue to site

Dentolegal advice
0800 561 1010
Membership information
0800 561 9000

Key contact details

Should you need to contact us, our phone numbers are always visible.

Personalise your search

We'll save your profession in the "I am a..." dropdown filter for next time.

Tour completed

Now you've seen all of the updated features, it's time for you to try them out.

Continue to site
Take again