The claimant, a 56-year-old woman, received £60,000 in relation
to the dental treatment she received between February 2005 and June
2008. It was believed that she would require a further 30
appointments with another dentist for restorative treatment.
The claimant had almost all of her teeth removed and had
subsequently suffered problems with dentures. On 9 February 2005
she started private dental treatment to fit dental implants and
connect them using bridgework and this was performed by the
defendant dentist.
She was told that the treatment would take approximately six
months to complete. By July 2005 the claimant had the lower front
bridge fitted which was supported by her remaining teeth. Temporary
bridgework was also fitted to the lower left and right side of her
jaw which was supported by implants. Both bridges subsequently came
loose and required re-cementing. The treatment then progressed
slowly as there was a delay caused by the dentist moving
practices.
In summer 2006, the dentist used a temporary cement to fit the
upper bridgework to allow for it to be removed easily for minor
amendments to be made. However, the dentist was subsequently unable
to remove the upper bridgework and the dentist reassured the
claimant that it would eventually come loose.
In the meantime, the claimant suffered from pain in two of her
remaining natural teeth in her lower jaw. The dentist removed the
lower front bridge and carried out root canal treatment to the
teeth and re-cemented the bridge. During the treatment the lower
right bridgework was cracked.
In February 2008, the claimant fractured her upper bridgework. In
April 2008 the dentist removed the upper bridgework whilst she was
sedated. He fitted a temporary bridge to her upper jaw while the
bridgework was repaired and amended. Then dentist attempted to
adjust the upper bridge by smoothing and polishing the abutments
but ultimately agreed with the claimant that the upper bridge was
too ill-fitting and required complete re-fabrication and so he
arranged for a temporary bridge to be made. However, the temporary
bridge did not fit properly. The claimant attended several further
appointments during May and June 2008 where the dentist attempted
to fit new upper bridgework but was unsuccessful. In June 2008 the
dentist advised the claimant that he was unable to continue
treating her as their relationship had broken down and that she
should seek treatment elsewhere.
The claimant therefore sought advice from another dentist who noted
that the upper bridgework was ill-fitting and needed complete
re-fabrication. He also believed that the lower front bridgework
would fail due to the poor prognosis for the canine teeth which
were supporting it and that an implant supporting the cracked lower
right bridgework had failed and so would also require complete
re-fabrication. He advised the claimant hat the lower left
bridgework required adjustment as she was unable to access areas
for cleaning.
The claimant attended over 60 appointments with the defendant
dentist, over 30 of which were for him to attempt to correct the
treatment he provided.
Simon Parford, Partner and head of the clinical negligence
department at Wolferstans, commented that "this woman has received
the compensation to which she is entitled to enable her to
adjust to her future."
If you have or know someone who has been injured and may have a
dental or medical negligence claim please contact us now for a free
confidential discussion.