We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better.
If you choose to customise the site it will help you to find the most relevant content for your needs. You will still be able to access all content on the site.
Click here to register
Find a wealth of expert guidance and practical advice to help you practise with confidence. Everything from safeguarding to consent, writing reports to investigations.
Understanding direct access can bring up a number of questions for dental professionals; here we provide some answers.
A patient brought a claim alleging that a DDU member had failed to appropriately use a mouth clamp during a crown preparation, leading to a dislocation of the jaw and the need for treatment under general anaesthetic to relocate it.
The DDU was able to successfully defend a member who faced a claim alleging a failure to identify and treat caries and fit a satisfactory crown, resulting in crown fracture, infection and tooth extraction.
A patient brought a claim alleging that a DDU member caused them to suffer neuropraxia during the extraction of their LR7, and either misplaced dental instruments or caused damage to the mucosa.
Complaints and claims for clinical negligence can arise many years after treatment and, in the absence of records, it may be difficult or impossible to defend an allegation successfully.
Patients are increasingly turning to social media to raise their concerns, so it's important to know how to respond if you're criticised online
A DDU member faced a claim alleging a failure to diagnose and treat a patient’s periodontal disease.
The DDU supported a member when they faced a claim alleging a failure to diagnose and treat periodontal disease in a young patient who had been attending the member's practice for two years.
A DDU dentist faced a claim after a patient alleged a failure to assess his periodontal condition before starting orthodontic treatment, and a failure to detect the periodontal attachment and bone loss that subsequently occurred.
A DDU member asked for advice around their obligations to a patient who wanted cosmetic treatment overseas, which the member thought was not in the patient's best interests.