Condition
Dental implant failure expert reports
Independent opinion on whether an implant failed through the treatment or despite it.
Breach of duty
The standard the clinician is judged against
Implants are placed by practitioners with widely differing training. The standard applied is that of a reasonably competent practitioner undertaking implant treatment — not the lower standard of a general dentist who has taken a short course.
Two questions carry most implant claims. Was the case properly planned, assessed and imaged before placement? And was the patient told what could go wrong — including the risks arising from smoking, uncontrolled periodontal disease or inadequate bone — together with the reasonable alternatives?
On that second question the test is the one set in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11.
Clinical evidence
How the failure happens
Placed into active disease
Untreated periodontitis at the time of placement.
Inadequate imaging or planning
No assessment of bone volume or nerve position.
Malposition
An implant that cannot be restored, or that damages an adjacent root.
Peri-implantitis unmanaged
Bone loss around the implant not diagnosed or not treated.
Overloading
Too few implants supporting too much prosthesis.
No maintenance regime
The patient never placed on implant recall.
The counterfactual
Causation, and where the claim fails
Implants fail in competent hands. The claimant’s own risk factors are the defendant’s first line. The expert must separate what the treatment caused from what the patient’s condition would have caused anyway.
A heavy smoker with untreated periodontal disease may lose an implant however well it was placed — but the fact that the implant should never have been placed until that disease was treated is itself the breach. That distinction is the substance of the report.
Damages are usually the cost of removing the failed implant, grafting, and restoring the site again — often more expensive than the original treatment.
-
01
What did the treatment cause?
As distinct from what the patient’s own risk factors would have caused anyway.
-
02
Should the implant have been placed at all?
Whether active disease or inadequate bone should have deferred or contraindicated placement.
-
03
What will remediation cost?
Removal, grafting and rebuilding the site — often more than the original treatment.
Discipline-led matching
The expert we match
Oral surgery, periodontics or restorative
A clinician experienced in implant dentistry, where planning, assessment and placement are in issue.
Periodontist or restorative dentist
A periodontist where peri-implantitis or pre-existing disease is central; a restorative dentist where the prosthetic design is in issue.
Where the instruction crosses those boundaries, we identify the required disciplines before you instruct and provide the proposed CV.
Expert evidence
The report you receive
Why solicitors instruct us
Implant claims are won on the right discipline and the remedial cost.
-
01
We identify which discipline your claim actually needs
Implant claims split between placement, periodontal management and prosthetic design. Instructing the wrong one costs you the report.
-
02
Remedial cost is where the claim sits
Rebuilding a failed implant site is expensive, and the schedule needs a clinician who has done it.
-
03
Keep one case-management contact
A named case manager coordinates the instruction, the proposed CV and the agreed report scope, and tells you where it stands before you ask.
FAQs
Commonly asked questions
Where the planning, placement or aftercare fell below the standard, and competent treatment would probably have succeeded.
It is central to causation and to consent. It does not automatically defeat the claim, particularly where the patient was never warned.
Inflammation and bone loss around an implant. Left undiagnosed it leads to failure.
A practitioner competent to do so. Whether that person was is a question the expert answers from the training, the planning and the records.
Discuss an instruction