Expert discipline
Endodontist expert witnesses
Opinion on root canal treatment, where failure alone establishes nothing.
What the discipline covers
The speciality of the dental pulp and the root.
The speciality
Endodontist
A dentist on the GDC’s endodontics specialist list, concerned with the dental pulp and the tissues around the root.
Common instructionWhere specialist endodontic technique is in issue.
General practice
General practitioner
Whether a general dental practitioner should have attempted the case at all is judged against the GDP standard, not a specialist one.
Common instructionRoot canal attempted in general practice.
Instruction scope
What these experts report on.
Missed canals and perforation
Missed canals, perforation, and inadequate preparation or obturation.
Separated instruments
Whether a separated instrument was avoidable, and whether it was disclosed.
Whether the case should have been referred
Whether the treatment should have been referred rather than attempted.
Whether the tooth was restorable
Whether the tooth was restorable before treatment began.
Consent
Whether the risk of failure was explained before treatment.
How we match
Specialist technique, or whether it should have been attempted.
An endodontist where specialist technique is in issue. A general dental practitioner expert where the question is whether a GDP should have attempted the case at all.
Where a tooth was lost after both endodontic and restorative treatment, causation may need both disciplines.
-
01
Specialist technique in issue
Endodontist
Where the standard of specialist root canal treatment is the subject of the claim.
-
02
Should a GDP have attempted it
GDP expert
The standard there is that of a competent general practitioner, not of a specialist.
-
03
Tooth lost after further treatment
More than one expert
Where endodontic and restorative treatment both bear on causation.
The report you receive
The standard, the consent, and whether the tooth would have survived.
The standard of treatment
Whether the root canal treatment met the expected standard.
The adequacy of consent
Whether the risk of failure was explained.
Whether the tooth would have survived
Whether competent care would probably have saved it.
Why solicitors instruct us
A failed root canal is not a claim.
Merits before liability
Our screening reports say so early, before you fund a liability report on a tooth that was always going to be lost.
Radiographs, not recollection
Pre-operative and post-operative images decide these cases. We ask for both before an expert offers a view.
A named case manager
One point of contact coordinates the instruction, expert correspondence and delivery of the report.
FAQs
Commonly asked questions
No. Failure is a recognised outcome of competent treatment. The claim requires a departure from the standard that caused the loss.
Not necessarily. The questions are whether it was avoidable and whether the patient was told.
Sometimes. That question is answered by a GDP expert, not by a specialist.
Yes, and as single joint expert. The duty to the court is unchanged.
Discuss an instruction