Decision report 201104068

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment her dentist provided in relation to root canal treatment that resulted in the loss of her tooth. Mrs C was also unhappy that the dentist had not explained the associated risks with this treatment and that her complaint was not properly handled.

In response to the complaint, the practice manager advised Mrs C that the dentist had explained the treatment and this had been documented in her clinical records.

When we looked at the clinical records, we found that the dentist had carried out an x-ray several months before root canal treatment was attempted, and had told Mrs C that she needed this treatment or that the tooth would eventually need extraction. We also took into account that the dentist had documented that Mrs C had been told at other appointments that she still needed to have this treatment carried out.

After taking advice from our dental adviser, we considered that it was good practice for the dentist to have treated the tooth by either root canal treatment or extraction as the x-ray had indicated an area of either inflammation or infection around the tooth. We also considered the dentist's explanation to why the root canal treatment failed to be reasonable. They had said that the root of the tooth was perforated (contained holes) and the continuation of the root canal could not be found, so extraction of the tooth was the best option to ensure that the inflammation did not spread.

We also found that the practice manager had responded appropriately to the issues Mrs C had raised in her complaint. Although the letter contained medical terms that could have been better worded, we did not consider that this significantly affected the overall understanding of the response.