Call 0800 051 8069 any day, any time

£4,000 awarded for substandard bridgework

  • 0 comments

    Sophie Angwin, recently acted for a Claimant who was fitted with a substandard bridge. The Claimant had a Maryland bridge fitted to replace the UR5 tooth and conventionally these bridges use one adjoining tooth to support the bridge (by cementing …

    By dentalnegligence

Sophie Angwin, recently acted for a Claimant who was fitted with a substandard bridge. The Claimant had a Maryland bridge fitted to replace the UR5 tooth and conventionally these bridges use one adjoining tooth to support the bridge (by cementing the wing of the bridge onto the adjoining tooth).

In this case, the Defendant unconventionally fitted the bridge to both adjoining teeth, which was negligent. The reasons this is not recommended is because one of the adjoining wings of the bridge could become detached, causing decay to develop underneath the detached wing.

The Defendant in this case had also caused damage to both of the adjoining teeth, by cutting retention grooves into both of the teeth, when fitting the wings of the bridge. This meant that the Claimant developed sensitivity at both of these teeth and they needed to be fitted with dental veneers.

Want to know more?

Share this

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Explore our site