Now that the case is closed, let's look at the postmortem. What your "shoddy/unscrupulous/money hungry" dentist likely did was enameloplasty on the occlusal groove(s)/ pit(s)/fissure(s) of the tooth in question. He likely placed a sealant or a composite resin, but in the absence of mechanical retention, the material flaked off.
Or the dentist did nothing at all.
But wouldn't that be visible in the films at least? He's saying there wasn't even evidence of a hole (based on my interpretation)
That's what he claimed to have done
there's no evidence of a hole that was ever filled was my whole point- supposedly he drilled on the anterior lateral aspect of 22, but there is zero evidence of work there on radiological or physical exam. I mean, you know teeth better than I do, but the guy probably isn't doing 8 years in prison for providing work so good you can't even tell it's there.
You wouldn't be able to see work done on the occlusal surface from a radiograph if it was pretty shallow. Fissure sealants and flowable composite don't have great radiopacity anyway. And if it flaked off like doctoothache had mentioned, you definitely wouldn't have seen anything at all.
That's what he claimed to have done
Superficial lesions are commonly seen on the facial of lower canines. These can be removed with a finishing burr leaving little or no evidence of having been performed.You wouldn't be able to see work done on the occlusal surface from a radiograph if it was pretty shallow. Fissure sealants and flowable composite don't have great radiopacity anyway. And if it flaked off like doctoothache had mentioned, you definitely wouldn't have seen anything at all.
But if work WAS done, I'm sure Mad Jack's dentist would have seen something intraorally upon Mad Jack's specific request. I don't know if a procedure was actually done, but if it was done on the labial of 22 as Mad Jack says... I'm sure it would be noticeable. Maybe his dentist just ran the drill and prodded Mad Jack with an instrument to make it seem like he did something. Haha. But of all teeth in the mouth, and all the obscure surfaces, why pick an anterior tooth?
What kind of material would it have been filled with, that would leave no visible trace?
Think of it as smoothing a surface with fine sandpaper. There is nothing to fill.
That's what I figured. Just going off of what Mad Jack said about something being filled.
Crime actually pays pretty damn
Time to break bad.
Sealants aren't normally used on the smooth surfaces of anterior teeth due to the high probability of it just flaking off (no bonding). Composite, I can believe. Although I'm thinking that the lesion was superficial enough that composite wasn't required. But I mean... this guy clearly isn't a star dentist, so I'm sure he could have done any of the above. Maybe he swiped the "pre-cavity" with a bur and placed a composite without any retentive features, other than the bonding agent.
That's like suggesting that the cause of death was basketball for those young athletes that die on the court.
Boom
