See attached documentSeptember 22, 2015Re: Complaint # [redacted] Revdex.com E4" Street Suite Cincinnati, Ohio 45202Dear [redacted] ***,This patient received root canal treatment of tooth #on 10-14-and was referred again for evaluation and possible treatment of the same tooth since the crown and part of the tooth as well as the crown had come offThe patient was seen and treated 5/19/The treatment plan was to provide a new post and core so a new crown could be placedThe treatment on that date consisted of removal of the remaining fractured core, electrosurgical exposure of the tooth and microscopic examinationThe microscopic examination revealed extension of the crack, discovered when the tooth was originally treated, into the root structure apical to the surrounding bone structure and a periodontal pocket on the exterior of the rootThe condition condemned the tooth to be non-restorable and needing to be extractedThe tooth was temporized and the patient and his referring dentist were informed of the hopeless situationThe procedure time was over 1% hours and the patient was billed $for the treatmentThe patient was always informed that the fracture line discovered 10/14/2012, which was not of severity to condemn the tooth at that time had migrated into the root structure causing fracturing of the tooth structure, breaking of the intra-coronal core and loosening of the crownFracture lines are an inherent weakness of the tooth and can possibly worsen with time, causing breaking and failureThe patient was informed of the treatment provided and potential risksThe patient signed a General Consent Form which states “root canal therapy though having a high degree of clinical success is a biological procedure and therefore cannot be guaranteedA tooth which has had root canal therapy may require retreatment, surgery, or even extraction.” The dentist providing the treatment has no control over the forces applied to restorations when the tooth is in function.The basic facts are that the patient was referred for evaluation and possible treatment of this toothThe treatment was provided in the most conscientious and thorough manner but the diagnosis and recommendation was not as he wished and he wants me to take responsibility for a situation over which I have no controlI believe this complaint is unfounded and unwarrantedThe patient is financially responsible for charges made for the treatment provided.Sincerely Yours,**Jerome JSiegel, D.D.S
See attached documentSeptember 22, 2015Re: Complaint # [redacted] Revdex.com E4" Street Suite Cincinnati, Ohio 45202Dear [redacted] ***,This patient received root canal treatment of tooth #on 10-14-and was referred again for evaluation and possible treatment of the same tooth since the crown and part of the tooth as well as the crown had come offThe patient was seen and treated 5/19/The treatment plan was to provide a new post and core so a new crown could be placedThe treatment on that date consisted of removal of the remaining fractured core, electrosurgical exposure of the tooth and microscopic examinationThe microscopic examination revealed extension of the crack, discovered when the tooth was originally treated, into the root structure apical to the surrounding bone structure and a periodontal pocket on the exterior of the rootThe condition condemned the tooth to be non-restorable and needing to be extractedThe tooth was temporized and the patient and his referring dentist were informed of the hopeless situationThe procedure time was over 1% hours and the patient was billed $for the treatmentThe patient was always informed that the fracture line discovered 10/14/2012, which was not of severity to condemn the tooth at that time had migrated into the root structure causing fracturing of the tooth structure, breaking of the intra-coronal core and loosening of the crownFracture lines are an inherent weakness of the tooth and can possibly worsen with time, causing breaking and failureThe patient was informed of the treatment provided and potential risksThe patient signed a General Consent Form which states “root canal therapy though having a high degree of clinical success is a biological procedure and therefore cannot be guaranteedA tooth which has had root canal therapy may require retreatment, surgery, or even extraction.” The dentist providing the treatment has no control over the forces applied to restorations when the tooth is in function.The basic facts are that the patient was referred for evaluation and possible treatment of this toothThe treatment was provided in the most conscientious and thorough manner but the diagnosis and recommendation was not as he wished and he wants me to take responsibility for a situation over which I have no controlI believe this complaint is unfounded and unwarrantedThe patient is financially responsible for charges made for the treatment provided.Sincerely Yours,**Jerome JSiegel, D.D.S