Expert discipline
Orthodontist expert witnesses
Opinion on case selection, monitoring, and the damage appliances can leave behind.
What the discipline covers
Recognised risks, and where the claim actually lies.
The speciality
Orthodontist
A dentist on the GDC’s orthodontics specialist list, who sets the standard for orthodontic treatment whoever delivered it.
Common instructionCase selection, monitoring and severe root resorption.
Dental care professional
Orthodontic therapist
Separately registered dental care professionals who carry out prescribed treatment under an orthodontist’s direction. Supervision is itself a question.
Common instructionTherapist-delivered or remotely supervised treatment.
Instruction scope
What these experts report on.
Severe root resorption
Whether monitoring would have detected it, and whether treatment should have stopped.
Decalcification
Whether developing lesions were seen and acted on, or seen and ignored.
Case selection
Treatment that should never have been attempted with aligners.
Appliances over untreated disease
Appliances placed over untreated decay or gum disease.
Retention and relapse
Retention advice, and the relapse that follows where it was inadequate.
Remote aligner treatment
The adequacy of supervision where treatment was delivered remotely.
How we match
An orthodontist sets the standard, whoever delivered the treatment.
Where a general dental practitioner or an orthodontic therapist provided the treatment, the standard remains that of a reasonably competent practitioner undertaking the work.
Where teeth were lost or restorations were needed afterwards, a restorative expert may be needed on the cost of putting it right.
-
01
Orthodontic treatment in issue
Orthodontist
Who sets the standard for the treatment however it was delivered.
-
02
Delivered by a GDP or therapist
The standard of the work
That of a reasonably competent practitioner performing the treatment, supervision included.
-
03
Teeth lost or restorations needed
Restorative expert
On the cost of putting right what the treatment left behind.
The report you receive
Case selection, monitoring, and the cost of putting it right.
Case selection
Whether the treatment should have been attempted as it was.
Monitoring and consent
What monitoring should have shown, and what the patient was told.
The cost of remedial treatment
The treatment now required to put it right.
Why solicitors instruct us
A known risk is not an automatic defence.
Monitoring is the question
The question is what monitoring should have shown, and what would have changed if it had.
Remote aligner claims are supervision claims
The evidence is different, and the expert needs to understand what supervision should have looked like.
A named case manager
One point of contact coordinates the instruction, expert correspondence and delivery of the report.
Frequently asked questions
Choosing the orthodontic expert.
Not by itself. It is a recognised risk. The question is whether it was monitored and whether treatment should have stopped.
An orthodontist. The standard is the same whether the treatment was delivered in a practice or remotely.
The standard is that of a reasonably competent practitioner performing the work. Supervision by the prescribing orthodontist is itself a question.
Yes, and as single joint expert. The duty to the court is unchanged.
Discuss an instruction