Dental History
During a routine course of dental treatment a 37-year-old man was seen by the practice's dental hygienist. Normal prophylaxis was carried out, using ultrasonic and hand scalers, and an air-jet polisher was used to remove tobacco stains. The patient then saw the dentist for a filling, and left the practice apparently quite content.
The patient returned for a routine check-up 14 months later, when he complained that his front teeth were sensitive to hot and cold. Examination revealed abrasion of the gingival third of the enamel of both central incisors, with associated heavy staining. The patient made an appointment to have these restored with tooth-coloured filling material. During this he said that he thought that the teeth had been damaged by the air polisher used by the hygienist during the previous course of treatment. Despite assurances to the contrary, from both his dentist and another dentist in the practice that this was not possible, he lodged a complaint with the Health Authority, even though the incident was well outside the statutory time limit.
All attempts at informal conciliation failed, in spite of a supportive report by a dental reference officer.
Negligence alleged
Another year passed, and the dentist was astounded to receive a County Court Summons from the patient, who was acting as litigant in person. He claimed compensation of £740 for the damage allegedly caused by the hygienist who was the dentist's employee. The attached expert report from a consultant oral surgeon concluded:
'On the assumption that such an air polisher was used, it is highly likely
that the lesions were produced by this instrument.'
Expert evidence
The MDU sought the advice of an eminent restorative dentist who examined the patient. The expert also went to considerable lengths to obtain an air polisher and perform tests on extracted teeth, but he could not demonstrate any damage to the enamel. He also searched the literature for relevant papers. His conclusion, supported by the literature survey, was that the air polisher could not have caused the damage to the patient's teeth.
A copy of the expert's report was disclosed to the patient, who then requested that the case go to arbitration.
Arbitration hearing
The dentist arranged for a portable air polisher to be taken to the hearing to demonstrate to the judge, using extracted teeth, that it could not have caused the damage. After hearing the testimony of the two expert witnesses, however, the judge found in favour of the dentist and the demonstration was not required. The judge awarded a limited recovery of the MDU's costs, which were over £6,000.
The patient lodged an appeal but eventually withdrew this and the matter was finally resolved almost five years after the treatment in question.
This page was correct at publication on 07/04/2002. Any guidance is intended as general guidance for members only. If you are a member and need specific advice relating to your own circumstances, please contact one of our advisers.