Description of Event or Problem · 0
PATIENT (B)(6) REFERRED TO AS "PATIENT" CONTENDS THAT HE WAS INJURED IN MULTIPLE WAYS BECAUSE OF DENTAL MALPRACTICE CAUSED BY (B)(6), DMD OTHERWISE REFERRED TO AS "DENTIST" USING 3D SCANNING TECHNOLOGY WITH GROSSLY INACCURATE RESULTS FROM THE 3D DENTAL SCANNER, 3D PRINTING MANUFACTURER, 3D DENTAL LAB AND THEIR EQUIPMENT THEREON. THE 3D DENTAL TECHNOLOGY FAILED TO PRODUCE A TRUE FIT FOR TWO ZIRCONIUM CROWNS AND A NEW BITE SPLINT. THIS DENTIST AND ALL OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED FAILED THE PATIENT AND HIS TEETH WITH THE USE OF 3D DENTAL TECHNOLOGY AMONG OTHER ACTIONS. THE 3D DENTAL TECHNOLOGY WAS NOT ACCURATE ENOUGH TO USE FOR IMPRESSIONS FOR NEITHER THE CROWNS NOR THE BITE SPLINT. RELYING ON THE DENTIST, THE PATIENT WAS TREATED WITH A 3D SCANNING DEVICE TO CREATE A DIGITAL IMPRESSION USED TO MANUFACTURE A TOTAL OF TWO 3D PRINTED ZIRCONIUM CROWNS AND A 3D PRINTED BITE SPLINT. PATIENT DISCOVERS ITERO SCANNER FROM ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC WAS USED TO MAKE A DIGITAL IMPRESSION OF MOUTH AND TEETH. THE PATIENT DISCOVERS THAT PRISMATIK DENTALCRAFT, INC UTILIZES AN FTS FILE FROM THE SCANNER TO MANUFACTURE THE 3D BITE SPLINT WHICH IS ONLY AVAILABLE THROUGH DENTISTS AND UNAVAILABLE TO THE PATIENT DIRECTLY. PATIENT CONFIRMS ITERO SCANNER WAS USED AND PROVIDED BY THE DENTIST TO GPS DIGITAL DENTAL LAB PRISMATIK DENTALCRAFT, INC. PRINTED THE 3D BITE SPLINT. WHEREAS GPS DIGITAL DENTAL LAB PRINTED 3D DENTAL CROWN FOR TOOTH #3 AND TOOTH#18. CLAIM ON 3D PRINTED BITE SPLINT THE PATIENT SUFFERED INJURY, PAIN, AND ECONOMIC LOSS FROM AN IMPROPER FITTING 3D PRINTED BITE SPLINT THAT CAUSED, CONTRIBUTED, AND CONCEALED THE NEED TO REPLACE TWO 3D PRINTED ZIRCONIUM CROWNS WITH CROWNS MADE FROM A PHYSICAL IMPRESSION. THE PATIENT ALSO SUFFERED ADDITIONAL NEGATIVE EFFECTS INCLUDING THROBBING AND RADIATING PAIN THROUGH TEETH AND GUMS. PREMATURE LOSS OF A NATURAL MOLAR TOOTH #18. LOSS OF CROWN. THE 3D PRINTED BITE SPLINT ALONG WITH THE 3D PRINTED CROWNS #3 AND #18 RESPECTIVELY WERE DEFECTIVE IN THEIR DESIGN AND FIT. THEY DID NOT MATCH CORRECTLY TO THE MOUTH OR TEETH OF THE PATIENT. THE DENTIST FAILED TO ADVISE PATIENT THERE WAS ANOTHER OPTION OTHER THAN 3D DENTAL SCANNING FOR CREATING AN IMPRESSION FOR A NEW NIGHT GUARD. THE DENTIST FAILED TO EXAMINE OR DISTINGUISH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PATIENTS' EXISTING NIGHTGUARD AND THE 3D PRINTED BITE SPLINT AT ANY TIME. 3D BITE SPLINT WAS ORDERED AFTER THE COMPLETION OF ALL DENTAL WORK TO THE UPPER QUADRANT PER THE TREATMENT PLAN. OTHERWISE, FUTURE ADJUSTMENTS MAY CHANGE THE FIT OF THE 3D BITE SPLINT. THE DENTIST NEGLIGENTLY SHAVED INTO TOOTH #15 IN THE UPPER QUADRANT AFTER THE NIGHT GUARD WAS ORDERED. THE ADJUSTMENT BY SHAVING INTO TOOTH #15 HAD AN EFFECT AND ALTERED THE 3D PRINTED BITE SPLINT. THE 3D PRINTED BITE SPLINT WAS IRREVOCABLY CHANGED AND TIGHTER FITTING THAN BEFORE. THE ADJUSTMENT TO THE UPPER MOLAR #15 REVEALED THE IMPROPER FIT OF THE 3D PRINTED BITE SPLINT PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN TO PATIENT. AS A RESULT OF AN IMPROPER FIT, THE 3D BITE SPLINT CONTRIBUTED TO THE BREAKDOWN OF NATURAL MOLAR TOOTH #18. AS A RESULT OF AN IMPROPER FIT, THE 3D PRINTED BITE SPLINT CAUSED PRESSURE AND ABRASIONS TO THE MOLAR FROM CONTACT MADE DURING WEAR WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO FAILURE OF 3D PRINTED CROWN #18. SIMILARLY TO THE NATURAL MOLAR TOOTH BEFORE IT. AS A RESULT OF AN IMPROPER FIT, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE MOLAR AND THE FRONT TEETH OF THE PATIENT WERE TOO FAR APART FOR THE 3D BITE SPLINT TO WEAR CORRECTLY. WHILE WEARING THE 3D BITE SPLINT, THE 3D BITE SPLINT CUPS THE LOWER EDGES OF THE FRONT TEETH. THE 3D BITE SPLINT HANGS PARTIALLY SUSPENDED BETWEEN THE UPPER AND LOWER MOLARS. THE 3D BITE SPLINT DOES NOT REACH THE MOLARS COMPLETELY TO REST THEREFORE DOES NOT FIT. WHEN THE MOUTH CLOSES, THE MOLARS CONTACT THE 3D BITE SPLINT THAT CLAMPS DOWN TIGHTLY WITH PRESSURE ON THE LOWER TIPS OF THE FRONT TEETH CREATING THE HAZARD OF CHIPPING THE FRONT TEETH WHILE WEARING 3D BITE SPLINT.