Dental Designs

[redacted] Please See Attached Documents [redacted] Revdex.com complaint ID: [redacted] ( [redacted] )In preface to my response to the patient's complaintI wanted to make clear that I have been practicingdentistry in this location for years and have never had a complaint against me to the Revdex.comThis officehas an exemplary record and reputationMany of our new patients come to us after reading the hundredsof positive reviews online.Pt reported w our office that her last dental visit was years priorHer chief complaint was "Brokentooth, cavities, missing filling, and I want the almagam (sp) out of my mouth." She reported significantmedical history which included vertigo and PTSD both of which severely complicated our ability to treatherThe patient refused any oral sedatives prior to dental work to help calm her anxietiesThe proposedtreatment plan included fillings and one tooth the patient had reported had broken years priorThebroken tooth needed a crown.The next two appointments the patient canceled at the last minute and did not return to our office for 4monthsWhen she finally returned, another tooth had brokenMore tooth structure was missing andmore extensive treatment was neededThe patient asked us to do everything we could to save the toothbut did not want a root canal.The mercury removal protocol includes the use of a rubber dam, a mask over the nose to filter breathed air, removal is done under heavy water spray, high volume suction and in large chunksThis protocol has been tested by a biochemist in our office and found to be effective at reducing mercury exposure during removalThe patient refused the use of the rubber dam as she was afraid it would cause a panic attackWith the patient's consent, we used our best alternative to the rubber dam; a single tooth special suction deviceAll other precautions were usedNo mercury exposure was noted during the procedure.The sensitive tooth the patient complained about was the tooth that was severely broken andcompromised before treatment startedWe addressed her concerns and made adjustments at severaldifferent appointmentsPatient was told the crowned tooth might need a root canal if symptoms persistand patient seemed to understand and was receptive to the idea, but never returned.The patient refused local anesthetic during a deep cleaning appointment which hampered the hygienist's ability to perform the cleaning effectively.After several months, patient decided she wanted all of her money refunded for all of the services we provided for her, even the services that were performed that she had no trouble withWe declined as she gave us her consent for the performed treatmentAll procedures, their alternatives and risks were explained and all patient questions were answered before work began at each appointment

I HAVE NO IDEA WHY SOME OF THIS IS IN BOLD, AND SOME IS NOTIT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL, AND I CAN'T SEEM TO CHANGE IT.
Complaint: ***I am rejecting this response because:Their response offers no refund, and also contains several inaccurate statements. Quoting from their statement in BLUE:
"She reported significant medical history which included vertigo and PTSD both of which severely complicated our ability to treat her. The patient refused any oral sedatives prior to dental work to help calm her anxieties."
I was assured that my issues could be accommodated, and that they were NO problemRepeatedlyWe dealt with how to handle my anxiety and my vertigo on the initial consult, and it was made clear to me that they were willing to work with me on these concernsThe only "oral sedative" I was offered was HalcionA very potent and potentially dangerous benzodiazepineSo much so, that several other countries have actually outlawed it.
I have had adverse reactions to other benzodiazepines in the past, and reported such to staffI initially requested to be completely sedated for proceduresUnder general anesthesiaDrH*** stated that this was not available, and indicated that it would be going against his 'holistic' approach to dentistryYet another reason why I believed I would be getting treatment in keeping with naturopathic dental practices"When she finally returned, another tooth had brokenMore tooth structure was missing and more extensive treatment was neededThe patient asked us to do everything we could to save the tooth but did not want a root canal."
How many teeth is he referring to hereHe says "another" tooth had broken, but then goes on to discuss the tooth that was already broken? How can a tooth that was not broken before, break further?
I was, in fact, told that the broken tooth I already had, had broken furtherDrH*** had told me at my initial visit that he could save this toothThe possibility of it needing a root canal was NEVER mentionedWhen the tooth presented being further damaged, he did not say anything about it possibly changing the outcomeThe possibility that this tooth was cracked, or may not be fixable, was NOT mentioned
"The mercury removal protocol includes the use of a rubber dam, a mask over the nose to filter breathed air, removal is done under heavy water spray, high volume suction and in large chunks."
This is HIS mercury protocolThis is not in keeping with holistic dentistry, which calls for an alternate source of breathable air, or even the protocols linked to on his own website(Unless he has since changed it.) I was NOT informed that his protocol would be different, and again, I'd like to reiterate that I was VERY CLEAR that I wanted a holistic dentistIf that was not what he planned to practice, he should have informed meAnd he did not remove those fillings in chunksHe drilled them outThe heavy water spray providing yet even further need for the dental dam. "The patient refused the use of the rubber dam as she was afraid it would cause a panic attack."
This is an outright lieFirst of all, I don't have panic attacksI have anxiety which is not the same thingSo I would have never said thatSecondly, his assistant came to me before the procedure and told me that HE was recommending I forgo the dental damn so as not to increase my feelings of claustrophobiaI asked her if it made a difference, and she said noI later found out it doesIt does make a differenceA big oneAnd I can assure you I would NOT have gone through all I did to even bring myself to have this work done, (given my phobias about it) only to forgo a safety procedure as significant as using the dental damIt provides a barrier to keep any amalgam from going down one's throatWhen people swallow amalgam, it can show up in their urine for quite a long time following ingestionMonthsMercury is poisonI would never have risked that.It is my belief at this point, looking back on the whole experience, that THEY wanted me to forgo using the dam, as my treatment may have taken longer if I did respond badly to it, and ended up needing time to adjustIt became obvious to me during my treatment that DrH*** does not like to be held up or slowed down in his work, regardless of reason.
"With the patient's consent, we used our best alternative to the rubber dam; a single tooth special suction device."
I was never told anything about this, so how could I have consented?
"All other precautions were usedNo mercury exposure was noted during the procedure."
Also not trueThere was a specially formulated rinse that is supposed to recover mercury from the mouth after amalgam removal that was also not usedOr ever mentioned.
"The sensitive tooth the patient complained about was the tooth that was severely broken and compromised before treatment started."
This is also inaccurateThe sensitive tooth I complained about was NOT broken, at all, nor did it have any visible defectsIt was just painfulHe said he could not see anything wrong with itThat it may be crackedHe did not offer any further evaluation or treatmentIf he saw that it was broken, why wasn't it fixed then...?
It has since actually broken off, just last night, something that could likely have been avoided had he addressed it when I asked him to, or even returned my money so I could obtain treatment elsewhere, when I initially asked him to
"Patient was told the crowned tooth might need a root canal if symptoms persist and patient seemed to understand and was receptive to the idea, but never returned."
This another statementI was told it may need a root canal AFTER treatment was completed, not before ~ when I may have decided to go another route ~ BEFORE I spend $on a crown that may not even workI was not receptive to the idea, I would never have a root canal under any circumstances and that is yet another procedure that is not in keeping with holistic dentistryMost holistic dentists feel root canals are harmful, and do not recommend themAlso, he clearly states earlier in the comments above that he is fully aware that I did NOT want a root canal.
So which is it???
There was no reason for me to "return" as when I complained in the office about the crown, to him, IN person, I was told it was "FINE"He obviously had no intention of fixing itThe scenario presented above never happened.
"The patient refused local anesthetic during a deep cleaning appointment which hampered the hygienist's ability to perform the cleaning effectively."
Why did they do it then...?? If it was not going to be effective, why did they conduct the procedure? Again, this is misrepresentedI did refuse anesthetic, but only because I was going to be getting fillings following the hygienist's treatment, and I did not want a double doseThe hygienist said it would be fine to do it without anesthesia, and a previous hygienist in his office had indicated to me that I was 'lucky' to have gotten the effects of the anesthetic being left over from my filling during a previous hygiene procedure, which would seem to imply that it is not always used for cleanings anywayNo one said one word about it making the cleaning potentially ineffective, or that it would be less extensive than the previous cleanings which did take place with anestheticIt certainly didn't feel less extensive.Who is going to KNOWINGLY go through a procedure as difficult as scaling and planing when they know it will not be effective? No one.What would be the point? This doesn't even make sense! What competent, scrupulous, professional is going to perform a procedure, knowing it won't work?He's just admitted to having had his staff perform, and bill for, a procedure they knew would not be effective! Which is why I want my money back, and why I don't trust ANY of the work I had done there. "After several months, patient decided she wanted all of her money refunded for all of the services we provided for her, even the services that were performed that she had no trouble with"
This is trueI did wait for a couple of monthsFor several reasonsI was dealing with some other health issues with my heart, and did not want the added stress of filing formal complaints to add to thatI also waited because I wanted to see if any of the complaints I had would resolve themselvesAnother reason, is because I was a business owner myself once, I consider taking this action a serious step, and wanted to give it substantial thought prior to proceeding. As to my asking for a full refund, this is due to the fact that given what has happened, I can't trust ANY of the work that has been done hereDrH*** has just admitted that one of my cleanings was knowingly not preformed "effectively"Which he apparently had no problem billing me in full forSo now I will have to have ALL of the deep cleanings redoneThey are done in quadrantsBecause, as he himself insisted, the whole mouth has to be done within one month, or the remaining bacteria reinfects the rest of the gumsSo while he may only admit to one quadrant's work being substandard, according to his own guidelines, they must now ALL be redone.
"All procedures, their alternatives and risks were explained and all patient questions were answered before work began at each appointment."
BaloneyI went in for an evaluationI was told what I needed to have donePeriodNot one alternative to anything he recommended was presentedIn the treatment visits, it was made very clear that my questions, and requests for reevaluation upon new symptoms, were unwelcomeI was actually admonished at one point for questioning the hygienist as I had put things behind scheduleI asked her THREE questionsAll of which she answered, WHILE she was working. If he is willing to lie, if he is willing to allow a hygienist to go through (and bill for) an entire procedure that he KNOWS will not only be ineffective, but will also contaminate and invalidate other work that was done, (and also billed for) then how do I know the rest of the work was done properly? How can I have any faith in that?
Even if it was, I still now have to have ALL OF IT reevaluated by another dentist to be sure, don't I?
So yes, for these reasons, I want a full refund.
Sincerely,*** ***

[redacted] Please See Attached Documents [redacted]
Revdex.com complaint ID: [redacted] ([redacted])In preface to my response to the patient's complaint. I wanted to make clear that I have been practicingdentistry in this location for 16 years and have never had a complaint against me to the Revdex.com. This officehas an...

exemplary record and reputation. Many of our new patients come to us after reading the hundredsof positive reviews online.Pt reported w our office that her last dental visit was 16 years prior. Her chief complaint was "Brokentooth, cavities, missing filling, and I want the almagam (sp) out of my mouth." She reported significantmedical history which included vertigo and PTSD both of which severely complicated our ability to treather. The patient refused any oral sedatives prior to dental work to help calm her anxieties. The proposedtreatment plan included 6 fillings and one tooth the patient had reported had broken 2 years prior. Thebroken tooth needed a crown.The next two appointments the patient canceled at the last minute and did not return to our office for 4months. When she finally returned, another tooth had broken. More tooth structure was missing andmore extensive treatment was needed. The patient asked us to do everything we could to save the toothbut did not want a root canal.The mercury removal protocol includes the use of a rubber dam, a mask over the nose to filter breathed air, removal is done under heavy water spray, high volume suction and in large chunks. This protocol has been tested by a biochemist in our office and found to be effective at reducing mercury exposure during removal. The patient refused the use of the rubber dam as she was afraid it would cause a panic attack. With the patient's consent, we used our best alternative to the rubber dam; a single tooth special suction device. All other precautions were used. No mercury exposure was noted during the procedure.The sensitive tooth the patient complained about was the tooth that was severely broken andcompromised before treatment started. We addressed her concerns and made adjustments at severaldifferent appointments. Patient was told the crowned tooth might need a root canal if symptoms persistand patient seemed to understand and was receptive to the idea, but never returned.The patient refused local anesthetic during a deep cleaning appointment which hampered the hygienist's ability to perform the cleaning effectively.After several months, patient decided she wanted all of her money refunded for all of the services we provided for her, even the services that were performed that she had no trouble with. We declined as she gave us her consent for the performed treatment. All procedures, their alternatives and risks were explained and all patient questions were answered before work began at each appointment.