Dentist erased over dental bur dishonesty and failings involving 39 patients

A dentist who denied leaving a dental bur in a patient’s mouth and told her it would not cause harm if swallowed has been erased from the General Dental Council (GDC) register.

The Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) also found repeated clinical failings involving 39 patients, including failings in radiographs, diagnosis and treatment, prescribing, consent, referrals and aftercare. In total, the case involved four dishonesty findings.

The dentist, who qualified in the 1980s, did not attend the hearing and was not represented. The committee was satisfied that notice had been properly served and decided it was fair to proceed in the dentist’s absence.

Concerns raised by colleagues

The case related to care provided between 2018 and 2023. The determination said the dentist was one of the directors of the practice at the time and had no previous fitness to practise history.

Concerns were first raised with the GDC following a patient complaint in November 2022. Further complaints were later received from an anonymous source at the practice, including concerns raised by dental colleagues. The determination said this included a dental hygienist who had worked alongside the dentist for around 14 years.

The committee found that the clinical failings involved ‘basic aspects of dentistry’ and concluded that a number of them fell far below the standard expected of a reasonably competent dentist.

Dishonesty findings

The committee found that the dentist had breached professional standards requiring registrants to obtain valid consent, provide good quality care based on current evidence and guidance, and act honestly and with integrity.

The dental bur incident formed part of four dishonesty and probity findings relating to four patients.

The committee also found that the dentist gave an incomplete account of a specialist practitioner’s comments, provided misleading advice about healing after extraction, and attributed previous root canal treatment to another dentist when he had provided it himself.

Erasure ordered

In deciding sanction, the committee noted that the dentist had no previous fitness to practise history. However, it also identified aggravating features including actual harm or risk of harm to patients, misconduct sustained over a period of time, attempts to cover up wrongdoing, dishonest conduct and a lack of evidence of insight.

The committee said conditions would not be sufficient and concluded that suspension would not protect the public or meet the wider public interest. It also noted information suggesting the dentist had not been practising since February 2024, but said he could return to practise at a later date if able to do so.

It said: ‘Anything less than erasure would fundamentally undermine public confidence in the profession and fail to declare and uphold professional standards.’

The dentist’s registration was suspended immediately to cover the appeal period. Unless the appeal is lodged, the erasure will take effect 28 days from the date notice is deemed to have been served.

Follow Dentistry.co.uk on Instagram to keep up with the latest news and trends.