Expert discipline

Periodontist expert witnesses


Opinion on whether gum disease was screened for, diagnosed and treated to the standard the records should show.

A dental model of the teeth and gums with dental floss, representing periodontal care
Periodontics GDC specialist list · the documented standard
Screening and diagnosis Bone-level interpretation Independent expert evidence

What the discipline covers

The speciality of the tissues that support the teeth.

Periodontal claims are unusual because the standard is documented, which shifts the argument onto causation.

01 GDC specialist list

The speciality

Periodontist

A dentist on the GDC’s periodontics specialist list, concerned with the tissues supporting the teeth and their loss over a course of care.

Common instructionSpecialist periodontal practice, or bone loss read across a long course of care.

02 GDC register

General practice

General practitioner

Where a general dental practitioner delivered the care, the GDP standard applies. A periodontist applying specialist standards to general practice has answered the wrong question.

Common instructionRoutine periodontal care delivered by a general practice, judged by a GDP expert.

Instruction scope

What these experts report on.

The periodontal expert reads the radiographs before offering a view on merits.

01

Failure to screen, diagnose or treat

Whether periodontal disease was screened for, diagnosed and treated to the expected standard.

View condition
02

Bone-level interpretation

Reading bone loss across years of radiographs to establish when the failure began.

Across years of radiographs
03

Teeth competent care would have kept

Which teeth would probably have survived had the disease been managed to standard.

Causation
04

Peri-implantitis

Including implants placed into active or untreated periodontal disease.

View condition
05

Contributory factors

Plaque control, smoking and diabetes, and their weight on the causation argument.

Weight on causation

How we match

Specialist practice, or the standard of a general practice.

A periodontist where specialist periodontal practice is in issue, or where bone loss must be interpreted across a long course of care.

Where the question is what a general dental practitioner should have done, a GDP expert with periodontal medico-legal experience is the correct author.

  1. 01

    Specialist practice in issue

    Periodontist

    Where specialist periodontal treatment is the subject of the claim.

  2. 02

    General practice delivered the care

    GDP expert

    A general practitioner with periodontal medico-legal experience, judged by the GDP standard.

  3. 03

    Bone loss across a long course

    Periodontist

    Where radiographs must be read across years to establish when the failure began.

The report you receive

Whether the standard was met, and which teeth would have survived.

A CPR Part 35-compliant report on whether screening and treatment met the standard, and which teeth would probably have survived competent care.

01

Screening and diagnosis

Whether the disease was screened for and diagnosed to standard.

02

Treatment

Whether the treatment provided met the expected standard.

03

Which teeth would have survived

The teeth competent care would probably have preserved.

Why solicitors instruct us

Radiographs decide these claims.

01

The radiographs come first

Bone levels across a decade tell you when the failure began. Our experts read them before offering a view on merits.

02

The claimant’s own mouth is the defence

Plaque control and smoking are always raised. An expert who cannot weigh them will not carry the causation argument.

03

A named case manager

One point of contact coordinates the instruction, expert correspondence and delivery of the report.

FAQs


Commonly asked questions

A screening examination of the gums, scored by sextant. It indicates what further examination and treatment are needed. It is not a diagnosis.

A periodontist, or a GDP expert where the treating clinician was a general practitioner.

It is relevant to causation and to contributory negligence. It rarely disposes of a claim on its own.

Yes, and as single joint expert. The duty to the court is unchanged.

Discuss an instruction

Need a periodontal opinion?

Tell us the clinical issue and the questions the evidence must address. A case manager will provide suitable expert CVs and a fixed quote.

Find a Dental Expert Now