NHS in England Closed After Initial Enquiries Search on PHSO website

Mydentist

P-003327 · Statement · Decision date: 24 February 2025 · View MyDentist scorecard
Complaint (AI summary)
Mrs T complained a dental practice extracted the wrong tooth, caused unnecessary pain from August 2023 to January 2024, and delayed its complaint response.
Outcome (AI summary)
The complaint was closed. The ombudsman found no indication that anything went wrong in Mrs T's dental care.

Full decision details

The Complaint

3. Mrs T complains the dental practice extracted a tooth, that it did not need to, on 18 October 2023. She says the dental practice wrongly advised Mrs T, as it was the tooth next to the extracted tooth that was causing the pain. She also says the dental practice delayed its complaint response and putting right her pain.

4. Mrs T felt alone and left in pain for longer than she needed to be. She explained she was in pain from 17 August 2023 to 2 January 2024 and this ruined her summer, October holiday and Christmas. She told us she is aware of the gap in her mouth and has lost trust in dentists.

5. Mrs T seeks acknowledgement and service improvements.

Background

6. Mrs T attended the dental practice for a check-up on 17 August. The dentist re-filled a tooth (UL6, the sixth tooth on the upper left hand side) that had a large recess.

7. Mrs T went back to the dental practice on 8 September. She explained pain was coming from the treated tooth (UL6). The dentist told her it was coming from the one next to it (UL7, the seventh tooth on the upper left hand side). The dentist prescribed antibiotics.

8. Mrs Standard’s pain continued. She went back to the dental practice on 18 October. She expressed the pain was from the treated tooth (UL6). The dentist advised it was decay in the tooth next to it (UL7). It told Mrs T she could have either root canal treatment (dental procedure used to treat infection at the centre of the tooth) or extraction. She decided on extraction and was very upset.

9. Mrs T returned to the dental practice following further pain and saw another dentist on 12 and 13 December. The new dentist identified a problem with her UL6 tooth and treated this on 2 January 2024.

Findings

13. To establish what should have happened during Mrs T’s dental care, our adviser referred us to GDC standards for dental team, standard one. This includes listening to patients, discussing treatment options and offering alternative treatments.

14. Our adviser told us the dental records and X-ray from 8 September confirm there was an issue with Mrs T’s UL7 tooth. The dentist took another X-ray on 18 October. Our adviser said this X-ray shows decay in the UL7 and explained this could be the source of pain. The dental records on 18 October say Mrs T’s UL7 was tender to press, which our adviser explained indicated this tooth was the source of pain.

15. The dental records show the dentist explained the treatment options were removal or root canal filling. Our adviser told us that these were the correct treatment options to offer Mrs T. The dental records also show the dentist explained the treatment options and risks. Mrs T decided on extraction. This was in line with GDC standards, standard one.

16. Mrs T returned to the dental practice on 12 December and a different dentist saw her. The new dentist agreed the X-ray from before extraction showed decay in the UL7 tooth. They explained it could be the case that UL7 had a symptomless problem and UL6 also had a problem and recorded Mrs T understood this. The new dentist discussed this again with Mrs T on 13 December and booked her in for follow up treatment on 2 January 2024.

17. Our adviser said it cannot be determined whether the dentist could have identified the issue with the UL6 tooth earlier. We understand it must have been upsetting for Mrs T having her UL7 tooth removed and still feeling pain, which was coming from the tooth next to it (UL6). We understand this led to Mrs T feeling she had not been listened to. Our adviser said the pain from UL7 could easily have masked the symptoms of UL6.

18. There is no indication that the dentist was wrong in removing the UL7 tooth. The dentist identified a problem with it, offered treatment options and removed the tooth. This was in line with GDC standards, standard one.

19. Mrs T also raised concerns that the dental practice delayed its complaint response and putting right her pain.

20. The NHS Complaints Standards set out a summary of expectations. This includes welcoming complaints in a positive way and giving fair and accountable responses. The GDC standards, standard five, says to have a clear and effective complaints procedure and give patients who complain a prompt and constructive response.

21. Mrs Standard raised her concerns on 30 October. The dental practice acknowledged this on 7 November and explained that it would respond within 30 working days.

22. The dental practice responded to her concerns on 12 December. It also arranged for another dentist to see Mrs T on this date. A discussion took place about her concerns and to discuss treatment for the UL6 tooth, on 12 and 13 December. The new dentist booked Mrs T in for treatment on 2 January 2024. We understand it must have been a painful experience for Mrs T.

23. There is no indication of a delayed response to her complaint. The dental practice acted in line with the NHS Complaints Standards by providing a fair response within the time agreed.

24. The dental practice acted in line with GDC standards, standard five, by providing a prompt and constructive response. When doing this, it also arranged for Mrs T to see another dentist to sort her ongoing dental problem.

25. During our primary investigation, the dentist told us they were upset Mrs T felt the level of care they received had fallen below their standards. They hope she finds confidence in a dentist who can meet her expectations and her trust in the profession can be restored. We hope this reassures Mrs T that the dentist has reflected on the concerns she has raised.

26. We understand the pain and upset these issues have caused Mrs T. We hope our decision on what happened can bring some closure to her concerns.

Our Decision

1. We have carefully considered Mrs T’s complaint about mydentist (the dental practice). We are sorry to read about the events that led to her concerns. We understand she was in pain and was upset following the removal of her tooth.

2. We have decided not to consider this further at detailed investigation because we have seen no indication that anything went wrong in her dental care. We have explained the reason for our decision within this statement.