An Ohio man is facing a pain of a different sort after he sought treatment for a toothache at the Ohio State University Emergency Dental Clinic. After paying thousands of dollars for dental treatments, he has been left without a permanent fix for his teeth. He is suing the Ohio State College of Dentistry for dental malpractice claiming that they misled him and failed to communicate with him about his dental treatment plan. He told his story to a reporter at the Lantern.

It all began in 2006 when the handyman went to the OSU Emergency Dental Clinic for a toothache. A dentist examined him and recommended a root canal and restorative work on his teeth. He was screened and eventually spoke with a dental practitioner in advanced prosthodontics who recommended an extrusion process to open his bite to allow for more work on his front teeth. The dental procedures she recommended were very costly, required several dental visits, as well as gold crowns and orthodontia.

The patient took her advice and began the expensive process of re-constructing his bite. Unfortunately, about half way through the extrusion process, the patient consulted with another dentist at the dental school. He warned the patient that the odds the patient's teeth would relapse - move toward their original positions - were good, and that the arduous dental work would all be for naught.

The patient began to worry about his treatment plan, but felt he had no other good option but to follow through with it.

Dental Practitioner Denies She Ever Recommended Expensive Dental Procedure

After months of delay and a recommendation by his treating dentist to switch dental treatment plans, the patient met with the doctor who had originally recommended extrusion to him. She admitted that extrusion was not a dental treatment option for him, but denied that she ever recommended the extrusion process to him. She recommended that he follow the new dental treatment plan, but said that first, he must pay to have the gold crowns removed. When the patient requested a refund and threatened a lawsuit, she dismissed him as a patient because he was no long a "good candidate."

The patient has consulted with other orthodontists and dentists in the area who agree that some dental treatment plan should be resumed to get him back on track. He has also filed two medical malpractice claims against the dental teaching hospital and three of the dental clinicians that saw him claiming they showed malice and recklessness in treating him.

He omitted suing the student dentist who managed his case because he has been "completely honest throughout this ordeal." Clearly, the patient would have appreciated that honesty and openness from the other dental clinicians who treated him.

Source: The Lantern, "Man left gnawing on lawsuits over dental work," 2/15/11