Advice on Teeth Whitening Discussion Thread

Toothsmith

It can be very variable - ask your dentist.

To start with, are you a regular dental patient? If so, there probably won't be much problem unless there are white fillings or porcelain restorations like crowns or veneers in your visible smile. (As these won't change colour, so would be likely to stand out once whitening has been done - so this should be factored into the cost if they need replacement afterwards, or indeed if it makes you unsuitable for the procedure)

Some dentists do these treatments as 'loss leaders' sometimes to get people into the practice - so the price seems quite cheap. Often these deals are for a set amount of product though, and you have to buy more if you don't quite get to the desired result with what you're given - so the cost will go up.

Personally, with me, my charge is quite expensive - but that is to get the patient to the agreed result (People sometimes have an unrealistic expectation, so that needs 'managing' and a realistic goal setting beforehand).

Whether you would want to go to a different dentist to your own just based on price is up to you, but I would always recommend going with your own dentist - or someone he/she recommends if they don't do it.

Teethwhiteninguk

brook2jack wrote: »

If you have proof a dentist is using 25%hydrogen peroxide then report them to the GDC. The law is Crystal clear on this and all systems containing over the legal limit were withdrawn from the market and in the case of some e.g. zoom reformulated to comply with legislation.

Prior to this dentists did suspend tooth whitening but agreement was made with trading standards standards in 2011 that dentists only could continue to use hydrogen peroxide to whiten teeth http://www.mddus.com/mddus/news-and-media/news/june-2011/row-over-teeth-whitening-resolved.aspx

Anyone who is aware of the multitude of people harmed by illegal tooth whiteners (according to babtac and habia who represent beauticians over 400 cases including one lady whose asthma was made permanently worse) will welcome the prosecution of people who have inadequate training, knowledge, cross infection controls, and are putting chemicals strong enough to change the colour of teeth inside one of the most delicate parts of the body often resulting in pain and damage.

There is no nationally recognised qualification in tooth whitening..... any one can set themselves up as a tooth whitener on the basis of a couple of hours "training" .

Any sensible person should be glad that the GDC are following their remit which is to protect the public.

For information the governing council of the GDC is 50% dental professional (dentists,nurses,hygienists,technicians) and 50% lay people ie members of the public. Their statutory duty is to protect members of the public and so their working is overseen by parliament and the privy council.

I would not disagree with you. It is also Trading Standards role to protect the public too.

My concern is the misinformation that is being churned out. I say the same thing on other non related sites.

If the government or any regulatory body misleads the public this is unlawful and a breach of the relevant codes of practice.

I understand that Lorna was prosecuted under sections 39 & 41 of the Dentists Act for using the term Dental Bleaching Technician and NOT under section 37 as reported. The original case failed under section 37.

This not too dissimilar to the Style Smile case - advertising the use of Dental nurses, examination of a clients teeth with a dental mirror and preparing treatment plans etc.

I also wonder why UK BDS dental surgeons put their name to non-peroxide products that the public are able to buy without a prescription and without supervision?

Some Dentists are also choosing to use some of the same products as non-dentists and advertise the brand names on their web pages!

Clearly you and the dentists have a biased opinion which is understandable, but there is always an opposing view to any debate.

Unfortunately, the non-dentist can be stamped on easily by the GDC and as well as others even if they are not breaking the law, due to their weight in numbers and the respect the public normally hold for the medical profession. However, as I have discovered in many arenas bullies come in many guises.

I am happy for rogue traders to be weeded out in all industries, but what I have witnessed here and elsewhere is beyond anything I have ever seen before.

The breast plant fiasco was a medical blunder that affected 1000's of women and is potentially life threatening, but the attention this issue received was a blip in comparison to teeth whitening.

A test case needs to be brought to settle the matter once and for all, but who could afford it?

welshdent

Why are we biased? ALL any of us have said is that tooth whitening is an act of dentistry thus can only be provided by dentists and those professionals registered with the GDC. That is not stating an opinion. It is not a view point. It is fact. Now, you clearly disagree with those laws but you do not make the rules on it so if anyone is being biased it is you. Test cases HAVE been brought and the courts have found in favour of the GDC. Believe you me, the GDC do not in any way protect dentists and your lack of awareness of that is highlighted by saying "Unfortunately, the non-dentist can be stamped on easily by the GDC and as well as others even if they are not breaking the law, due to their weight in numbers and the respect the public normally hold for the medical profession. However, as I have discovered in many arenas bullies come in many guises. "

The GDC are not bullying anyone. They are prosecuting those that are found to break the law. If you spend some time going through the GDC cases you will see that dentists get even harder treatment and rightly so when they have done wrong. I know of cases that have been thrown out in court only for the dentist to be erased from the register by the GDC on balance of probability.

Now regarding biased OPINION ... my opinion is indeed weighted to ther GDC and I believe that tooth whitening by non dental registrants SHOULD be illegal. If you are not capable of fixing or arranging to fix problems you create should you be doing a procedure in the first place? If you have a patient with extreme sensitivity and chemical burns attending with you after you do whitening on them, can you fix them? Can you alleviate their pain? No. We can. THAT is a side of the argument. Now by all means campaign for a system you feel is fair from your perspective but all you are doing is arguing against facts in a rather stubborn manner in my opinion and that is why I personally find your posts extremely frustrating.

brook2jack

Once again the GDC is composed of a committee of half dental professionals, half lay people. The type of person who sits on the committee as a lay person (not connected in any way to dentistry) is very unlikely to be cowed by dentists. Indeed the GDC is charged by law to protect the public, not to protect dentist. To this end the GDC is overseen by parliament and rhetoric council and a failure to protect the public would be taken very seriously.


On the other hand any old person can spend a thousand or so be "taught" tooth whitening by some one equally unqualified, get a useless certificate and be assessing someone as healthy enough to put a chemical they claim is strong enough to change the colour of teeth into people's mouths.

It may damage, burn , make gum disease worse, pass on contagious diseases but the illegal whitener can continue day in day out until either someone sues (over 400 cases and counting) or trading standards or the GDC step in.

Lorna Jamous broke the law, she is not alone. There have now been many prosecutions upholding the GDC position that tooth whitening is the practice of dentistry. Hers was the test case , the first prosecution where the defendant plead not guilty and her prosecution was upheld by the High Court. Thus it is now case law.

A poll said 86% of the British public said only dentists should carry out tooth whitening. 75% said illegal tooth whiteners should be prosecuted.

5141bella

Munkee wrote: »

I want to whiten my teeth. I already use tooth whitening toothpase (reputable brands like arm & hammer) twice a day but they could be whiter.

I looked in boots today and tooth whitening/bleaching kits are about £9 onwards.

Does anybody know of a cheaper way?

Baking soda is always in the cupboard but can it be used on it's own or will I spend thenext few days being sick?

Hello Munkee,
In my opinion you should try laser whitening I am sure it will make a huge difference.

Thanks...

Teethwhiteninguk

brook2jack wrote: »

Once again the GDC is composed of a committee of half dental professionals, half lay people. The type of person who sits on the committee as a lay person (not connected in any way to dentistry) is very unlikely to be cowed by dentists. Indeed the GDC is charged by law to protect the public, not to protect dentist. To this end the GDC is overseen by parliament and rhetoric council and a failure to protect the public would be taken very seriously.


On the other hand any old person can spend a thousand or so be "taught" tooth whitening by some one equally unqualified, get a useless certificate and be assessing someone as healthy enough to put a chemical they claim is strong enough to change the colour of teeth into people's mouths.

It may damage, burn , make gum disease worse, pass on contagious diseases but the illegal whitener can continue day in day out until either someone sues (over 400 cases and counting) or trading standards or the GDC step in.

Lorna Jamous broke the law, she is not alone. There have now been many prosecutions upholding the GDC position that tooth whitening is the practice of dentistry. Hers was the test case , the first prosecution where the defendant plead not guilty and her prosecution was upheld by the High Court. Thus it is now case law.

A poll said 86% of the British public said only dentists should carry out tooth whitening. 75% said illegal tooth whiteners should be prosecuted.

It is not all over until the fat lady sings.

It looks like the case could be going to the supreme court and Lorna Jamous is asking for details of anyone slandering her name to be forwarded to her.

Teethwhiteninguk

welshdent wrote: »

Why are we biased? ALL any of us have said is that tooth whitening is an act of dentistry thus can only be provided by dentists and those professionals registered with the GDC. That is not stating an opinion. It is not a view point. It is fact. Now, you clearly disagree with those laws but you do not make the rules on it so if anyone is being biased it is you. Test cases HAVE been brought and the courts have found in favour of the GDC. Believe you me, the GDC do not in any way protect dentists and your lack of awareness of that is highlighted by saying "Unfortunately, the non-dentist can be stamped on easily by the GDC and as well as others even if they are not breaking the law, due to their weight in numbers and the respect the public normally hold for the medical profession. However, as I have discovered in many arenas bullies come in many guises. "

The GDC are not bullying anyone. They are prosecuting those that are found to break the law. If you spend some time going through the GDC cases you will see that dentists get even harder treatment and rightly so when they have done wrong. I know of cases that have been thrown out in court only for the dentist to be erased from the register by the GDC on balance of probability.

Now regarding biased OPINION ... my opinion is indeed weighted to ther GDC and I believe that tooth whitening by non dental registrants SHOULD be illegal. If you are not capable of fixing or arranging to fix problems you create should you be doing a procedure in the first place? If you have a patient with extreme sensitivity and chemical burns attending with you after you do whitening on them, can you fix them? Can you alleviate their pain? No. We can. THAT is a side of the argument. Now by all means campaign for a system you feel is fair from your perspective but all you are doing is arguing against facts in a rather stubborn manner in my opinion and that is why I personally find your posts extremely frustrating.

It is not all over until the fat lady sings.

It looks like the case could be going to the supreme court and Lorna Jamous is asking for details of anyone slandering her name to be forwarded to her.

brook2jack

It's hardly slander to report a prosecution for illegal practice. It protects the innocent public by publicising those who have broken the law.

Teethwhiteninguk

It will be interesting to find out what the EU might say in regards to an alleged EU law infringement against the UK government in connection with teeth whitening for non-dentists.

Teethwhiteninguk

brook2jack wrote: »

It's hardly slander to report a prosecution for illegal practice. It protects the innocent public by publicising those who have broken the law.

But has she? The case has not be brought back to the magistrates court.

Furthermore, I note a dentist on another site making derogatory remarks about Lorna and non-dentists has had all his posts removed. He was very rude to me too.