Search the Registers

The Case Examiners considered allegations that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. Allegations related to the Registrant failing to provide an adequate standard of care to Patient PM between 22 December 2022 and 27 September 2023, including excessive interproximal reduction whilst undertaking Invisalign orthodontic treatment. The Case Examiners were satisfied that the following General Dental Council ‘Standards for the Dental Team’ (September 2013) could be engaged in this case at: Standard 7.1: ‘You must provide good quality care based on current evidence and authoritative guidance.’ Standard 7.2: ‘You must work within your knowledge, skills, professional competence and abilities.’ Associated guidance 7.2.2: ‘You should only deliver treatment and care if you are confident that you have had the necessary training and are competent to do so. If you are not confident to provide treatment, you must refer the patient to an appropriately trained colleague.’ Having determined that there is a real prospect of all of the facts alleged being proved, and of the statutory ground of misconduct being established, but no real prospect of a Practice Committee finding the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be currently impaired, the Case Examiners are satisfied that this case ought not to be considered by a Practice Committee. However, the Case Examiners consider that although there is no real prospect of a finding of current impairment being made, there is evidence to suggest that the Registrant’s overall conduct has fallen below the standard expected to a degree warranting a formal response from the General Dental Council. To dispose of this case without further action would, in the Case Examiners’ view, fail to declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and conduct, nor would it help to maintain confidence in the dental profession. The Case Examiners have consequently noted that their Indicative Outcomes Guidance (February 2018) states at paragraph: ‘81. …, the Case Examiners do not consider that there is a real prospect of current impairment being established, the Case Examiners may wish to consider whether the imposition of a warning.’ The Case Examiners accordingly consider that a warning, published for 6 months, would be a proportionate response to the Registrant allegedly breaching the General Dental Council’s Standards and indicate to him that this conduct should not be repeated. This has taken into account that the incident involving one patient, over one course of treatment, appears to have been an isolated and unrepeated matter and the risk of repetition of the conduct detailed in the relevant allegations is considered to be low. The Registrant is reminded that this warning will form part of his fitness to practise history, and he may be required to disclose it even after the period for publication has expired

The Case Examiners formally warn the Registrant that: • Failure to provide a good standard of orthodontic treatment can result in irreversible damage for patients. The Registrant must ensure he maintains and keeps up to date his skill and knowledge of current orthodontic treatment to ensure that he provides an appropriate standard of orthodontic treatment for all patients.