Advice on Teeth Whitening Discussion Thread

brook2jack

I'm sure the owner of smilestyle successfully prosecuted for tooth whitening by the GDC agrees that what they say is worth "nowt", as are the others whose cases are pending.

What you don't seem to understand is it is not what you put in a persons mouth that constitutes practice of dentistry it is what you do. Your friend is "assessing" peoples medical and dental health and passing them fit to put an unknown chemical in their mouths .

There are many,many gum,teeth and health conditions that someone with ,lets be charitable, a few hours training , cannot spot either because they don't have the equipment (xrays,perio probes) or the expertise. teeth with gum disease can look very healthy and the gums can look very healthy , it's often only probing with a special instrument or xrays that will tell you there's a problem.

This must be frustrating to hear if someone has spent hundreds of pounds or more setting up a business that they thought was legit, and particularly galling if they are relying on it as a main source of income. But the fact is no matter what claims of whitening or harmless substances etc they are breaking the law , a law which is now proven in a test case , and a law which is now being enforced.

welshdent

jasperconran wrote: »

It doesnt matter what the GDC say. They are not the law, they are not government.

You can carry on giving people links etc from the GDC, but at the end of the day, it all counts for nowt!

Oh really?? You really are like talking to a brick wall.

If they are so powerless then why was "Paul William Hill of Warrington, director of PW Healthcare Consulting Limited, ordered to pay a total of £6,265 in fines and costs, and PW Healthcare Consulting Limited, which traded nationally as Style Smile Clinics, ordered to pay a total of £6,765, after Hill pleaded guilty to four offences, including practising dentistry while not registered as a dentist or dental care professional"

http://www.gdc-uk.org/Newsandpublications/Pressreleases/Pages/Defendant-pleads-guilty-in-tooth-whitening-case.aspx

jasperconran

welshdent wrote: »

Oh really?? You really are like talking to a brick wall.

If they are so powerless then why was "Paul William Hill of Warrington, director of PW Healthcare Consulting Limited, ordered to pay a total of £6,265 in fines and costs, and PW Healthcare Consulting Limited, which traded nationally as Style Smile Clinics, ordered to pay a total of £6,765, after Hill pleaded guilty to four offences, including practising dentistry while not registered as a dentist or dental care professional"

http://www.gdc-uk.org/Newsandpublications/Pressreleases/Pages/Defendant-pleads-guilty-in-tooth-whitening-case.aspx

have already read it. maybe he wasnt just doing a cosmetic procedure (which this was passed as by the House of Lords, and the EU) who by the way, are a hell of alot more powerful than your GDC!!!!! Or maybe he was using an illegally high level of peroxide in his gels. As I have found out, some people are using higher than the recommended percentage. which is absolutely disgraceful.

Stop spouting your quotes/passages from your beloved GDC. ok, its been passed BY THE LAW as cosmetic as I said by the House of Lords and the EU.

Again, who are more powerful than the GDC. The House of Lords IS THE LAW

:p:p:p

brook2jack

Trading standards alone prosecute peroxide cases , it has nothing to do with the GDC.GDC just have powers to prosecute illegal practice of dentistry.

This was a whitening case and purely prosecuted as a whitening case smilestyle did nothing else (they closed in December) here is website
http://www.stylesmileteethwhitening.co.uk/qanda.html .
interestingly they advertised as bleach and peroxide free.

Alternatively read the case details. There are several more pending.

jasperconran

they advertise as bleach free, I know alot of clinics that use non peroxide gels. so what!?

several more cases, pending......hmmmmm oh really? There are literally hundreds of people/companies that are carrying out cosmetic teeth whitening (cos you know, the law and all that passed it as such) and the only people who seem to get the a*** is dentists, what a coincidence!

What are you lot gonna do about it?? hmm? prosecute the whole of the UK :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


Seriously dont you and ole welshdent work????? have you not got anything better to do?

get over it:p:p:p

welshdent

none so blind as those that can not see brook. I think our points have been made far clearer that some loon bleating about the house of lords whilst ignoring the facts. They can presume as much as they like about our concerns about non dentists doing dentistry. I think we know and those that see us as regulars here will know ... that individuals being properly and safely treated is our only aim here.

jasperconran

welshdent wrote: »

none so blind as those that can not see brook. I think our points have been made far clearer that some loon bleating about the house of lords whilst ignoring the facts. They can presume as much as they like about our concerns about non dentists doing dentistry. I think we know and those that see us as regulars here will know ... that individuals being properly and safely treated is our only aim here.

Excuse me!!???? how dare you call me a loon!!!!!!! if anyone is a loon on here its you two. I KNOW exactly what the facts are thank you very much. You just dont like being put straight and you dont like the fact that I have brought the House of Lords into this discussion, cos you know deep down, I am indeed right, about them passing the law and that they are indeed much more powerful than yourselves, the GDC and Trading Standards. and fyi, its not dentistry for the last time, its a cosmetic procedure again as ruled by people who are alot higher than you lot.

And as I have said before, get off ya soap box and get over it. cos there is nothing you can do about it:p:p:p:p

jasperconran

try this link


www.uber-beauty.co.uk/pdf/legal.pdf.pdf



I think it explains everything

Toothsmith

jasperconran wrote: »

try this link


www.uber-beauty.co.uk/pdf/legal.pdf.pdf



I think it explains everything

If that 'explains everything' then how come StyleSmile WERE successfully prosecuted?

Also - If it explains everything - then why were only 2 substances, Chlorine dioxide, and peroxide mentioned? What about this mysterious magic stuff your 'friend' uses? Where does that fit in?

But don't panic - I wouldn't trust any document where the author can't spell 'laser'! (You can't spell it any other way because it stands for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emmission of Radiation - Not the Ztimulated Emmission of radiation)

jasperconran

Toothsmith wrote: »

If that 'explains everything' then how come StyleSmile WERE successfully prosecuted?

Also - If it explains everything - then why were only 2 substances, Chlorine dioxide, and peroxide mentioned? What about this mysterious magic stuff your 'friend' uses? Where does that fit in?

But don't panic - I wouldn't trust any document where the author can't spell 'laser'! (You can't spell it any other way because it stands for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emmission of Radiation - Not the Ztimulated Emmission of radiation)

As I said previously, Stylesmile probably used above the legal limit for peroxide or something like that. And my friend does not use a laser she uses an LED light. and the gel my friend uses is a non peroxide gel. I will try and find out whats in it.

You wouldnt trust anyone cos you dont like other people having an opinion, you also dont like it when people are right mate.

like i said to the other two, House of Lords, EU.......end of discussion.