A patient of a dentist who formerly practised in Tenby has spoken of the ‘emotional distress’ she was caused after the man - purported to be one of the UK’s ‘top false teeth specialists’ - botched her implants.

A public hearing conducted by the General Dental Council’s professional conduct committee determined last week that Steven-Bal Sharma would be erased from the register with immediate effect following an inquiry.

The inquiry heard that Mr. Sharma who was a registered Dental Practitioner in practise at James Hull Dental Care, in Surrey, failed to provide an ‘adequate standard of treatment’ to a patient under his care at a practice in Tenby back in 2004 to 2005.

Despite being referred to as ‘Patient L’ in the inquiry, Anne Roberts of Saundersfoot has told the Observer of her horror ordeal, after the General Dental Council’s professional conduct committee hearing noted that the factual findings in this case included numerous clinical failings by Mr. Sharma of which over 200 were found to be proved, in relation to twelve patients over a prolonged period of time, between 2004 to 2015.

“I attended to have implants, and Sharma promised ‘high quality implants’ - in fact he only used a few of these, the rest were poor quality which the new dentist could not trace, therefore could not find replacement parts, which necessitated expensive remedial work!” explained Mrs. Roberts.

“According to the GDC (General Dentist Council) guidelines, Sharma should never have started my treatment knowing that he was leaving the practice, and there would be none of the prescribed aftercare,” she continued.

“Both myself, my legal team and the ICO requested my dental records to no avail, in fact Sharma even denied having me as a patient!

“Had it not been for the fact that I had a copy of a letter he sent to my dentist in Haverfordwest regarding the treatment I would have had no proof whatsoever.

“The implants started to fail , and had it not been for Dr Mark Boulcott in Herbrandston and the excellent treatment provided I would have found myself in dire straits!

“It was only then that I found an implant for which I paid £2,500 - had not even been used, thus causing problems with surrounding teeth.

“This caused emotional distress, not to mention financial outlay that would not have been necessary had Sharma not been negligent and dishonest.

“I mention Dr. Boulcott because he selflessly undercharged me for the many hours he spent on remedial surgery, he really saved a God awful situation and restored my faith in dentistry. Words alone cannot express my gratitude!” added Mrs. Roberts.

In considering the gravity of Mr. Sharma’s breaches, the GDC concluded that his ’dishonest and misleading’ conduct was a serious departure from the standards expected of a registered dental professional and would be considered deplorable by fellow professionals and members of the public.

It considered that these failings concerned fundamental aspects of dentistry and directly impacted upon the overarching issue of patient safety. Given the significant number of charges, the number of patients and the wide-ranging nature of the matters where facts have been found proved, the Committee identified the following themes covering poor clinical and administrative practice and poor interaction with patients into which Mr. Sharma’s failings fall: Record keeping; Obtaining informed consent; Effective pre-treatment assessment which includes using effective diagnostic tools; Taking and recording of radiographs and in compliance with IRMER 2000; Execution of restorative work including placing of implants and veneers and the prescribing of antibiotics; Advertising; Communication which includes complaints and treating patients with dignity; Dishonesty in respect of advertising and misleading patients.

The Committee was satisfied that the clinical failings in these themes were wide-spread, prolonged, repeated and extremely serious. They went to the very heart of a dentist’s duty to ensure patient safety and to put patients’ interests first. The failures concern basic and fundamental obligations of an ordinary competent dentist and were what Mr. Sharma manifestly failed to do.

The Committee therefore concluded that Mr Sharma’s conduct, individually and cumulatively, fell seriously below the standards expected of a registered dental professional and amounted to misconduct.

‘The Committee has considered the effect that erasure from the register is likely to have on Mr Sharma, but it finds that any lesser sanction than erasure would be wholly insufficient to protect the public, declare and uphold proper professional standards and maintain public trust and confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process,’ stated the GDC report.

‘The Committee has determined, and hereby directs, that Mr Sharma’s name be erased from the register.

‘The Committee has reached serious findings against Mr. Sharma and is satisfied, for the reasons set out in its substantive determination, that he poses a risk to patients and that there is a high risk of repetition of the misconduct found. In these circumstances, the Committee has concluded that it would be inconsistent to allow him the opportunity to continue to practise during the intervening appeal period. Further, the Committee is satisfied that immediate action is necessary to protect the public and uphold public confidence in the profession.

‘In accordance with the Dentists Act 1984 (as amended) the Committee has determined that it is necessary for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest that Mr. Sharma’s registration be suspended forthwith.

The Committee therefore directs that Mr. Sharma’s registration be suspended forthwith. Unless Mr. Sharma exercises his right of appeal, Mr. Sharma’s name will be erased from the Register 28 days from the date on which notice of this decision is deemed to have been served on him. Should Mr Sharma exercise his right of appeal, this immediate order for suspension will remain in place until the resolution of any appeal.’ - concluded the outcome of the case.