Duvall Discipline Panel Decision (redacted) - College of Dental ...

- 11
In January and February 2006, Dr. Duvall provided crowns to teeth 3.5 and 3.7. Dr. D H
examined tooth 3.5 some time after the crown was delivered and noted that it had to be redone
because the mesial margin was not adequate. He advised ES that she may need a root canal on
that tooth and referred her to an endodontist.
Dr. Penner reviewed the radiograph of tooth 3.7 and confirmed that the crown was deficient on
the mesial margin. He explained that the deficiencies on both crowns put the patient at risk for
bacteria entering the teeth, potentially causing infection. He further explained that it is very
important for crowns to fit properly because of the risk of infection and that if they do not fit
properly, they should not be inserted.
The Panel reviewed Dr. Duvall's letter of response, which did not address the issue of the
deficient margins to teeth 3.5 and 3.7.
The Panel finds that the allegation that the crowns delivered to teeth 3.5 and 3.7 were
substandard has been proven and is incompetent practice within the meaning of Section 39(1)(d)
of the HPA.
Citation #6
In or about February 2007, as regards your patient, ML, your provision of restorations
to teeth 3.6 and /or 3.7 was substandard.
The Panel reviewed a complaint letter from ML, his chart, radiographs, a report from a
subsequent treating dentist, Dr. M, a response from Dr. Duvall and heard evidence from Dr.
Penner.
ML saw Dr. Duvall on February 28, 2007 at which time he provided two fillings to teeth 3.6 and
3.7. After the work was done ML went to the bush to work until June. While working he
developed a toothache that was so severe he was taken to Smithers by helicopter for
emergency treatment.
Dr M found that Dr. Duvall had failed to remove all of the decay from the teeth when he
performed the restorations and that this was causing the pain. He further noted that the patient