Technician struck off for practising dentistry
- Details
- Published: Friday, 29 May 2015 11:45
- Written by News Editor
- Hits: 3378
A dental technician from Greater Manchester has been erased by the General Dental Council (GDC) following a public hearing into allegations of misconduct. Anthony Warren Cann, was neither present nor represented at the hearing by the GDC’s Professional Conduct Committee, which said it considered that there was a real risk of patient harm, if a dental technician provides treatment for a patient instead of the patient being treated by a dentist.
The charges Mr Cann faced included:
“That being a registered dental care professional:
- On 5 October 2006 at Trafford Magistrates Court you were convicted of illegally practicing dentistry.
- On 28 March 2008 you signed an application form for registration with the General Dental Council as a dental technician (‘the application form’) and ticked the box “No” in response to the question: “Have you been convicted of a criminal offence and/or cautioned and/or are you currently subject to any police investigations which might lead to a conviction or a caution in the UK or any other country?”
- On 30 April 2014 you offered to provide treatment including:
- Clinical examinations and/or procedures;
- Taking an impression from inside the mouth;
- Recording occlusal registration or ‘bite’;
- Fitting a dental appliance (‘the dental appliance’);
- You offered to undertake the steps in charge 4(a)-(d) above, having failed to explain that the person requiring the dental appliance must:
- First see a dentist;
- Obtain a prescription from a dentist;
- On 30 April 2014 you stated that there was no need for the person requiring the dental appliance to see a dentist in connection with the treatment at head of charge 4(a)-(d)
In considering this case, the GDC’s Professional Conduct Committee said: “The Committee considers that Mr Cann’s actions have been unacceptable and have brought the profession into disrepute. The Committee considers that there is a real risk of patient harm, if a dental technician provides treatment for a patient instead of the patient being treated by a dentist. One of the risks is that there will be no diagnosis of disease or oral infection. Another is that there is a risk of poor impressions being taken and the dentures causing consequent damage to the patient’s mouth.
“The Committee also took into account the chronology of Mr Cann’s repeated dishonesty, and that he acted outside of his scope of practice both in 2005 and 2014. He has failed to demonstrate any insight into why dental professionals must not act dishonestly and must at all times stay within their scope of practice.”
You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report