Aspen Dental
Reviews and Complaints

Aspen hires a lot of people fresh out of dental school. Their pay isn't all that great, but if you don't know someone with their own office it can be hard to land a job with a private practice, and forget about getting a small business loan to hang out your own shingle if you have no experience and a mountain of student loan debt.

But the corporate culture is so profit-driven, so very much the opposite of why most of us wanted to get into dentistry, that they have a really high turnover rate.

In most practices, new dentists get officially or unofficially mentored for several years by more experienced doctors, especially on difficult cases, but I would guess that most dentists working for Aspen have less than five years of experience. Whoever worked on your daughter is either really green and is just waiting to get a better job, or else is a *** doctor who can't get hired anywhere else.

I agree. I take good care and have always had good checkups.

Obviously, things happen... I've had a couple of crowns, one root-canal, and some fillings. But basically easy cleanings, good dental maintenence on my part (I brush, floss...) I moved, changed insurance, and had almost no choice but Aspen. My previous private practice doctor in another state was thorough and conscientious.

But on my first visit to Aspen, the tech pushed the probe so hard and deep that she reported deep pockets (which I do NOT believe I actually have.) That led to "periodontal" cleaning which is not covered by my insurance. So, now that's been done, and my latest checkup has all pockets as 1's, 2's, and 3's, but still my next checkup is scheduled as "periodontal" which as noted, it not covered by my insurance. What a scam. I have healthy gums, good teeth, with the occasional cavity.

I brush and floss. This whole business model strikes me as predatory.

Ridiculous. Going to another doctor for another opinion or a cleaning is not malpractice. Telling you it is...well I would say that's close to malpractice.

I went to Aspen, yesterday, after work. And basically, the same thing happened to me.

They told me I had early stages of periodontal disease and after my insurance paid, my out of pocket expense would be, $638.00. I called them back today and told them I wanted my xrays and perio chart ready. They were hesitant and told me they didn't charge my insurance company, so I can just go to another dentist and have the xrays and exam, done. WRONG!

I will be picking them up, today. I will also be making a complaint to the Oklahoma Medical Board.

Ask them to give you a copy of your perio probings, and get a second opinion. If they are legit they should have taken them.

I don't see that that will help. I believe the person doing the periodontal probings in the first place has a mandate to find deep pockets.

At my first visit, she said, "oh, bleeding. You probably have a gum disease." I replied that if you stuck a needle in my finger I'd bleed, too, but I don't have any finger disease. She was OVERLY aggressive. I have always had regular dental checkups and have NEVER had these high numbers for pockets so naturally I don't believe those found by Aspen are accurate.

Since then, I'm now listed as a periodontal patient and all subsequent checkups are at the higher rate, not covered by my insurance. I'm very disappointed that HPHC has endorsed these people as the network provider.

They did the same to me yesterday. I am going back to my previous dentist (who does not accept my insurance) and just getting a regular cleaning and paying for it on my own then submitting my receipt on my own and get back whatever I can from my insurance for going to a non participating dentist.

I want to see what my dentist that I have went to for over 20 years says. It is crazy that they will not do a basic cleaning. I was told once I get the gum disease treatment done once I will be good and can just get regular cleanings.

My gums are not swollen or bleeding and her comment made me very suspicious. My cost was to be $355 but I would sooner pay my previous dentist (who I trust) that money if I really need a gum disease treated.

Funny how everyone I know (including myself) that has went to Aspen Dental seems to have periodontal disease. I went to them because my dentist retired. He had never said anything about periodonitis to me.....hmmmmmmmmmm, how can so many people develop this disease when they go to Aspen?

Periodontal disease and cavities are 2 totally separate entities. Yes you may only have 3 cavities in your whole life, but you may also have the initial signs of gum disease.

The reasonable and customary service for any patient with signs of gum disease (periodontal disease) is scaling and root planing (extensive cleaning) to remove the causative factors (i.e. anerobic bacteria deep in your gums). Yes you can get a second opinion, but what if your second opinion still states you have gum disease? Will you still run away from the extensive cleaning you obviously still need?

Yes dental treatment is expensive, and NO, dental insurance does not cover everything. Dental insurance and medical insurance are 2 totally different things.

No, I don't work for Aspen Dental, but I am a general dentist in the USA.

Informing you that "if another practice did a regular cleaning on me it would be considered 'malpractice'" is completely unethical. They're trying to frighten you out of getting a second opinion.

Call your insurance company and tell them the situation--most carriers have an Ombudsman or Fraud Waste and Abuse department who could help you.

Most insurance companies will allow you to get a diagnostic visit at another in-network practice for a second opinion (in fact they might insist on it!). Depending on how that second opinion goes, you might want to file a complaint against Aspen with your carrier--they probably have a big, thick file on them already.

I agree, AspeDental really sucks!!! We are only interested in taking money.

We honestly don't know anything about Dentistry.

I feel sorry for the people, customers who walk through the doors of AspenDental. We are really going to rip you off for Dental work that you do not need.

Shyam Sunder Jindal

N Dartmouth

New Delhi

I agree with you shyam Aspen Dental really sucks!!! And is made up of highly incompetent people.

They jindel destroyed my gums causing gingivitus. Now I have to file a lawsuit against AspenDental.

Aspen Dental is made up of Dentists fresh out of Dental school or Dentists that don't have the means to open their own practice. The Dentists are under extreme pressure by corporate to hit a certain amount of profit everyday.

So the Dentists are forced to make up procedures or exaggerate minor flaws and turn them into costly procedures. Dentist especially straight out of Dental school have $100's of thousands in student loans to repay and can make a decent living at Aspen dental without having to pay for the expensive equipment and building. That's why they are forced into this kind of behavior to survive. It's not just Aspen dental all the corporate dental practices are designed to maximize profits at all costs.

It's shameful and ridiculous!!! I have direct knowledge of their game.

This is exactly what happened to me. I can't believe it!

I think I dictated to you what you have said above. I will never go back to Aspen!

I've had several of my friends receive treatment at Aspen Dental in Paducah, as well as being a patient myself. I could not disagree with you more on your assessment of this office.

Every member of their staff has treated me exceptionally well. The only problem I have ever had is a crown they gave me was a little tender, but after I brought this to their attention, they adjusted on it and it's been great ever since. One of my friends got her teeth extracted and got some dentures. She told me that the dentist was very careful and caring during the process.

Her teeth look amazing and she could not be happier with them. A few months after she got them, they got a little loose, but she went to go see them and they put a new liner in them, which tightened them back up. I've heard nothing but good things about Aspen, and I keep telling all my friends how good they are to people.

I usually don't write on these type of things, but I have been so impressed with the care and attention I've received from my dentist and the staff at the Paducah Aspen that I couldn't stay quiet and let you try and trash their good name. You should be ashamed of yourself.

mu email id is dentalfraud@***.com. please contact me by email.

hi miss linda sue crawford,

very sorry to hear about your trouble with the dentures. you have to be proactive and take your problem to the next level.

this is very common with these kinds of corporate dentistry. please email me and i will provide with information which will lead you to recover your money .

It is amazing, how many people don't read small print -- the ads say -- for patients without the insurance... Go online and check the ad.

I agree that there is no need for name calling here. And, I did not state or imply that nightguards were never needed by anyone.

They may indeed serve a great purpose for certain patients. The point I was making and feel is being missed is that for 55 years (before and after Aspen Dental) no other dentist that I have ever been to has suggested that I would benefit from using one.

Also, deducting the $450 stated cost of the nightguard from the $2977 estimate still would have left me at $2527. Aspen Dental's $2527 or my dentist's $1100 for the same services, is there a likely explanation other than profit margin?

Please don't think that nightguards are a rip off or that they are useless. They serve a great purpose for the right type of patient.

In no way am I defending Aspen. I am simply trying to educate you more about nightguards.

I agree with "DDS" that there are a small proportion of dentists out there that are giving the profession a bad name. There are many dentists out there that are very ethical and have the patients' best interest in mind.

I am a periodontist in Florida and I do not work for Aspen Dental. I'd like to respond to the statement made about the nightguard.

They are very important for patients that clench or grind their teeth and for patients that are having extensive cosmetic treatment. The price has a wide range from $300 to over $800, depending on the dentist and type of practice. I can assure you that they have a huge purpose and take a long time to make properly...that is why they are so expensive. I am not sure why the dentist would offer one for free if the patient is only spending $1100 (not to say that that's not a lot of money, but the lab bill on a nightgaurd is very high).

My speculation is that it wasn't (or won't be) a proper acrylic nightguard. In more extensive cases where the patient is going to spend a lot of money, I have heard of them being given away for free.

No, I don't work for Aspen. And I think they did a lot of damage to our profession.

I just want to express my thoughts about this, which might be a lot different from yours, just because I am looking from a different angle.

So good luck. There is no need for name calling here.

I'm wondering if you work for Aspen Dental, since you rush to their defense on these reviews. Profit sharing?

I had never been told that I needed a nightguard before, and don't expect to be told that in the future, so I don't know (or care) how much they usually run. I don't need one!

I suppose you would also find it odd that periodontal scaling, root planing, oral irrigation, and three fillings only cost me $1,100. The "local" dentist's office did a great job, at a much more reasonable price, and have a satisfied new patient.

I have never heard about the "free" nightguard, unless they are running some kind of special. Usually nightguards run about $300 at least.

So either "local" dentist just wanted your business, or they were not telling you the whole truth. One might through in a free nightguard with an extensive cosmetic work, e.i.

veneers, multiple crowns in the front, large bridges, but definitely not with $1000 worth of work. I find it odd.

No doubt aspen dental sucks!

We got a second opinion from another dentist & different Location of Aspen dental, We went in telling them that something was wrong and that we wanted a second opinion. We also contected the Customer service paticent satification head quarters of aspen dental.

Than we kept conplaining I made calls every single day, We ended up talking to the head of Pacient Satisfaction that reported directly to the CEO of Aspen Dental. Her name is J. Catchpole. My Life Partner (Husband) is going for corrective oral surgery this thrusday to correct all the mistakes that Aspen did and we still have to get his second set of dentures later.

and we told them that if there wasn't a settlement by a certian date we were going to the media and whom ever would listen to us.

Keep hounding them and get the second opinion that is what helped us. I think that they should be investigated by the Dept of Health, the American Dental Association as to their practices and the qualifications of their dental staff.

Hello,

My mentally disabled sister is going through something very similar. She is having calcium deposits coming out of the roof of her mouth because of an infection caused by the dentist. We demanded our money back, but they only sent us 345.00 and she doesn't even have her permenant dentures! What did you have to do to get all your money back?

Thanks!

and my life partner? so now we understand

I am not saying that all dentists are like the one that did this job. I have been to alot of great dentists and have been very confident in their abilities.

There are just a few in the profession that give the rest of the good dentists a bad name. Right now we are having to go to a very good professional OS that will be correcting what the previous Regular Dentist messed up. and having to pay out more money. I just wanted to let consumers beware that a large major company that just thinks of money than pacients needs a second look at by the right agencies to make sure they are abiding by the laws.

I stroungly urge you to look up on any search the numerous complaints and you will see what I am talking about. I am sorry that you feel that I am labeling ALL dentists that they are bad that is not what I am doing I am trying to let consumers know that look into the back ground of a major company like Aspen and check the dentists cordentials and as to speak to some of that dentists past & current pacients, thats all.

So something like that does not happen to them. It has been a *** of an expierence and what all we had to go through.

I am not going to argue about what ER doctor said to you. Clindomycin is known to cause severe diarrhea that can cause bleeding.

Pen VK should be discontinued if you are taking another, stronger antibiotic.

AS far, as refusing yuo a consult with OS, I don't see how they can do that -- you can just go to OS office and get a consult -- I don't understand how this is a problem. I don't work for Aspen or any other big corporate, honestly, I think they caused a lot of damage to our profession, but I look at all these complaints objectively, with the eyes of the dentist who works with the Patients every day.

OK, My facts are stright, ASPEN DENTAL REFUNSED US A CONSULTATION WITH AN ORAL SURGON first of all, We were willing to pay the extra. As for the medications, He was prescribed the Penicillian VK by one dentist and the Clendomicisan by another ASPEN DENTAL DENTIST, and the combination one medication taken after the other is what the problem was In my partners recoreds it showed the first prescription and than the second dentist prescribed the second medication.

The problem is that NO ONE read the records other wise the second dentist would have known that the combination of the medications could be leathal. If you read the medication warning signs you will see the consiquances of taking one medication right after the other medication, the medications were not taken together they were taken consecutive. When he was admitted to the hospital for a bleeding colon that was the first thing that the ER doctor asked him what medications have you been on and we told them and the ER doctor about exploded, the ER doctor told us under NO CERCOMSTANSIS SHOULD EITHER ONE OF THOSE MEDICATION BE USED ONE RIGHT AFTER THE OTHER BECAUSE THEY COULD BE LETHAL AND KILL YOU. You might want to look at the discription of both Penicillian VK & Clendomician and you will see what I am talking about.

If you look up on the web you will see SO MANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT ASPEN DENTAL IT IS NOT FUNNY. I have read alot of them and some of them have had the same thing happen to us that happened to them. I looked at the BBB and there are ALOT of complaints and their grade level with the BBB is not so good, I have looked at the Attorney Generals web site under concumer complaints and I couldn't believe my eye at how many complaints have been filed.

This will be the last thing that I say about this situation. I have said my peace and have gotten my furstration out.

1. General dentist is qualified to do extractions. There are no restrictions about that. The most common reason why Patient choose to get multiple extractions done by the general dentist is -- PATIENTS DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR ORAL SURGEON, because their fees are higher.

2. If Doctor changed your antibiotics, you do not have to take BOTH, you just take the second one they gave you. SO -- LISTEN TO WHAT THE DOCTOR IS TELLING YOU WHILE GIVING YOU A PRESCRIPTION.

3. If the Dentist works in ONE state, they are licensed in just that state. Unfortunately, US does not have national licensing -- every state have their own requirements and licenses.

4. No dentist is obligated to be ADA member -- it is completely up to the doctor. And FYI -- it cost a lot of money to maintain the membership, and not every dentist wants to throw out another $1000/year on top of all the other fees, like license, DEA, CE credits, to be an ADA member.

I am sorry for what happened to your partner, but before you post something like that, please, get your facts straight.

Everyone deserves to have a smile. :sigh Right Willie D??

:grin :grin :grin :grin :grin :grin :grin :grin :grin :grin :grin :grin

Oh, so when there you don't have any more arguments, you resort to the insults? Well, you can think whatever you want.

You can think whatever makes you feel happy. I do not care.

For several reasons I have concluded you, "DDS" blogger, are no stinkin' dentist. Enjoy your smoke and mirrors pay packet while you can. Good luck and best wishes.

"It is quite amazing what one is allowed to get away with when wearing a white lab coat and juxtapositioning words to mimick established science." That is exactly what Dr like he are doing. So I read one of Dr.

Huggins articles about the root canal treated teeth and how bad are they for you. It is based on some numbers from 1920's !!!! You think the techniques and materials changed from then????

BTW in my 20years of practicing dentistry I did not put one amalgam in. But that is not the point here.

I looked up Dr. Huggins. Pretty impressive list of violations and misconducts.

In 1995, the Colorado State Board of Dental Examiners held twelve days of hearings related to complaints brought against Hal Huggins. On February 29, 1996, Administrative Law Judge Nancy Connick recommended that Huggins's license should be revoked gross negligence and other professional misconduct. Huggins did not appeal, and his license was subsequently revoked. The judge's report contained 235 findings of fact, of which 17 are reproduced below, followed by the full text of the judge's conclusions and decision. Huggins's license was revoked in 1996. In 2007, the Board concluded that Huggins was engaging in the unlawful practice of dentistry by providing services in a dental clinic that he owned. Huggins denied the Board's allegations but signed a stipulated cease and desist order under which he agreed to not do what he was charged with and to stop using the title "D.D.S." in the State of Colorado unless he clearly discloses that he is not licensed to practice in Colorado. The full text of Judge Connick's 71-page report is posted on Casewatch.

Findings of Fact

4. For the past 22 years, Respondent [Huggins] has limited his practice of dentistry to the diagnosis and treatment of patients he believes are mercury toxic due to the placement in their mouths of dental amalgam filings which contain mercury.

6. Respondent originally used amalgams in his dental practice. As early as 1973, Respondent became aware of anecdotal cases of medical improvements reported on removal of amalgams. Respondent states that he then began to observe similar phenomena in his own practice. It was at this time that Respondent adopted as his life's prime objective "exposure of mercury's destructive potential.

8. Respondent is the only dentist in the United States who trains other dentists how to treat patients with alleged mercury toxicity due to dental amalgams.

11. Over time the Huggins Center has had a staff of approximately 50 employees, including approximately three dentists, dental assistants, nurses (including a psychiatric nurse who assists patient who experience emotional upsets when their amalgams are removed), nutritional counselors, massage and movement therapists; a video producer, accountants, other business employees, and, for a while, a physician.

13. The Huggins Center accepts for treatment patients with just about any symptoms and . . . . encourages prospective patients suffering from almost any illness to seek treatment from the Center and offers them assurances that their health will improve.

16. Many of the patients who seek treatment at the Huggins Center are very ill and are desperately seeking help.

17. The Huggins Center accepts the patient's medical diagnosis (e.g., multiple sclerosis), makes a diagnosis of mercury toxicity, and then treats the purported mercury toxicity and medical disease.

22. On several occasions, Respondent has told patients that he had MS and was cured, even though in fact Respondent has never suffered from this disease.

23. Respondent has designed two separate "detoxification programs," offered at the Huggins Center. The first is a comprehensive in-office program for those with serious problems. This program generally lasts two weeks, although it takes three weeks for ALS and leukemia patients. The Huggins Center has approximately 250 patients a year in this in-office program. The cost of this program is about $6,000 plus charges for the actual dentistry. The second is an "assist" program" to patients outside Colorado, those with more moderate problems, and those interested in prevention. The assist program costs approximately $380 plus charges for serum compatibility testing and dental work.

38. Respondent admits that he cannot prove the link between mercury from dental amalgam and disease but believes that he is entitled to rely on his clinical experience which suggests such a link.

39. When asked to state the scientific basis for his theories on mercury toxicity from amalgams, root canal extractions, and cavitations, Respondent was very vague. While he was able to identify a handful of studies on which he relied, he generally referred to thousands of publications in his library which supported his position, although he had not supplied them to the Board in response to their requests and could not identify them. He also sought to portray questions seeking to identify these studies as unreasonable by, for example, indicating that his goal is to treat patients and not to "rattle off" citations in the literature. In addition, he indicated his philosophy that the absence of proof in not the proof of absence.

40. It is highly probably that had additional studies lent credence to Respondent's practices, he would have supplied them or at least been able to identify them in substantially greater detail, particularly in light of the fact that he knew the scientific bases of his practices were being questioned and his dental license was at stake.

72. Respondent testified that there are thousands of articles which establish that amalgam causes multiple sclerosis but was unable to give citations "off the top of his head."

87c. Respondent consistently represents that the Huggins Center has an 85% success rate, measured by an improvement in patient symptoms and chemistries. Respondent believes that his treatments are effective and that it is only the patient's unwillingness to continue adequate nutritional and other follow-up or the patients falling into the unlucky 15% which prevents success. Because there is no scientific basis for the diagnosis or treatment performed at the Huggins Center, this statement is misleading, deceptive, and false.

89. As its standard protocol, the Huggins Center extracts all teeth which . . . have had root canals performed on them, even when they are asymptomatic.

110. As part of his diagnosis of mercury toxicity, Respondent uses a mercury toxicity questionnaire involving approximately 500 very general questions which are not connected to mercury toxicity and which have no diagnostic value. For example, the questionnaire inquires whether a patient has ever experienced emotional irritability, but this is not a sign or symptom of mercury toxicity.

169a. Respondent represents that both massage and sauna help remove toxins from the body. Respondent represents that sweating from a sauna aids a normal excretory mechanism of the body and removes mercury. . . . Respondent admits that there is no scientific evidence supporting his contentions in relation to sauna but relies on his experience. There is no scientific evidence that mercury is eliminated from the body through perspiration.

Conclusions of Law

1. The Board has jurisdiction over Respondent, his license, and the subject matter of this proceeding.

2. In relation to Count I, since July 1, 1986, in his book, publications, and videotapes, Respondent has engaged in advertising which is misleading, deceptive, and false in violation of Section 12-35-***(*)(k), C.R.S. (effective July 1,1986). . . .

3. In relation to Count II and specifically patients D.A., G.B., M.B., A.G., H.G., H.S., G.S., and Dr. T.F., Respondent has engaged in acts or omissions which fail to meet generally accepted standards of dental practice or which constitute grossly negligent dental practice, in violation of Section 12-35-***(*)a), C.R.S. (1995). . . .

4. In relation to Count III, since July 1, 1986, Respondent has practiced dentistry as a partner, agent or employee of or in joint venture with any person who does not hold a license to practice dentistry in Colorado or has practiced dentistry as an employee of or in joint venture with a partnership, association, or corporation other than as provided in Section 12-3*-***, C.R.S., a violation of Section 12-35-1**(*)(*), C.R.S. (effective July 1, 1986).

5. In relation to Count IV and specifically patients D.A., G.B., M.B., A.G., H.G., H.S., G.S., and Dr. T.F., Respondent has abandoned his patients by failing to provide reasonably necessary referrals to licensed physicians for consultation or treatment in violation of generally accepted standards of dental practice and in violation of Section 12-35-***(*)(v), C.R.S. (1995). . . .

6. In relation to Count V and specifically patients D.A., G.B., A.G., H.G., H.S., G.S. and Dr. T.F., Respondent has engaged in willful and repeated ordering and performance, without clinical justification, of demonstrably unnecessary laboratory tests or studies; the administration, without clinical justification, of treatment which is demonstrably unnecessary; the failure to perform referrals when failure to do so is not consistent with the standard of care for dentistry; and the ordering or performing without clinical justification of services and treatment which is contrary to recognized standards of the practice of dentistry as interpreted by the Board, in violation of Section 12-35-***(*)(x), C.R.S. (effective July 1, 1989). In relation to M.B., the only treatment rendered after the effective date of Section 12-35***(*)(x) was the prescription of supplements, which constitutes a violation of this section. . . .

7. In relation to Count VI, the above violations of the Dental Practice Law also constitute violations of Section 12-35-***(*)(h), C.R.S. (effective July 1, 1986).

Initial Decision

Once violations of Section 12-35-***(*), C.R.S., have been established, the Administrative Law Judge must determine what disciplinary sanction, if any, is appropriate. Such sanctions may be suspension of a license for a period of not more than one year; revocation of a license; or reprimand, censure or probation. Section 12-35-***(*), C.R.S. In this matter, the Board's counsel seeks revocation of the Respondent's license. Respondent asserts that no discipline is appropriate.

In his practice of dentistry at the Huggins Center over the years, Respondent has engaged in a pattern and practice of violating the Dental Practice Act. He first engages in deceptive advertising to entice patients to seek dental treatment for their 9 serious medical problems when in fact there is no known link between their teeth and general health or between the treatment offered and any improvement in their health.

The efficacy of this deceptive yet seductive advertising is shown by the thousands of telephone calls coming into the Huggins Center every month.

Respondent instills fear in the public that the mercury in their amalgams is poisoning their bodies. His emotionally-charged publications, laced with scientific references and terminology, are designed to convince the public not only that amalgams are the undiscovered cause of everything from MS to Alzheimer's disease, but that there is a simple cure which offers them an amazing and tantalizing 85% success rate. The Huggins Center holds the key to their improved health.

Respondent offers hope not just to a few. His espoused treatment offers to remedy a host of conditions, including tremors, seizures, MS, ALS, Alzheimer's disease, emotional disturbances, depression, anxiety, unprovoked suicidal thoughts, lupus, scleroderma, rheumatoid arthritis, unexplained heart pains, high and low blood pressure, tachycardia, irregular heartbeat, osteoarthritis, chronic fatigue, "brainfog," digestive problems, and Crohn's disease. The sheer breadth and number of these diseases is staggering. They include a number of life-threatening and debilitating conditions for which medical science offers only symptomatic treatment. When faced with these serious diseases, it is no wonder that patients are willing to grasp at any hope of improvement and turn to Respondent for the miraculous improvements he promises. The debilitating nature of the diseases for which Respondent offers treatment and the desperate straits of a number of his patients, combined with the lack of any scientific basis for the treatments he offers, make Respondent's conduct particularly egregious. Respondent has taken advantage of the hope of his patients for an easy fix to their medical problems and has used this to develop a lucrative business for himself.

The diagnostic techniques and treatments offered by Respondent at the Huggins Center are scientifically unsupported, without clinical justification, and outside the practice of dentistry. The standard protocols which Respondent has developed thus provide care which does not meet generally accepted standards of dental practice and, in many cases, is grossly negligent. Instead of referring patients to physicians who could actually treat their underlying medical diseases and who could make a diagnosis of the mercury toxicity which Respondent suspects, Respondent simply ignores the limits of his qualifications and licensure and proceeds to treat these patients. He subjects patients to a wide array of tests and treatments. which have no clinical justification.

In relation to the eight patients at issue here, Respondent used his standard protocols. While all these patients suffered financially due to Respondent's intervention, a number of them also suffered physically or emotionally. Respondent's encouraging D.A. to believe in her son's wish that she sell her wheelchair is so out of proportion to any benefit which could be anticipated that it is cruel. The Huggins Center treatment caused actual harm to A.G.'s mouth and gums, as well as her appearance, under circumstances when her prognosis was very poor. Far from affording her the hoped-for improvement of her liver cancer, the Huggins Center treatment actually diminished her well-being during the last months of her life. In relation to H.S., the Huggins Center diagnosis of her being very sick, coupled with the disclaimer of any liability if she proceeded without full treatment, caused her to transfer to the significantly more expensive in-office program and to experience emotional upset, which was aggravated when she was later told she had cancer.

Along the way, Respondent has clearly become convinced that his treatments are effective and that it is only the patients unwilling to continue adequate nutritional and other follow-up or those unlucky 15% who will not benefit from his treatment. He is perfectly capable of ignoring the large body of scientific evidence which suggests that his theories in every arena are not credible; citing scientific literature selectively; exaggerating findings or studies which appear to support to his work; referring to the thousands of publications which support him yet being unable to produce those; and asserting that his clinical experience, as biased and unscientific as that may be, is itself the only support he needs. Respondent essentially says "trust me" to the dental profession and the public but provides no reasonable basis upon which he should be trusted.

Given his steadfast and longstanding commitment to his theories in the face of substantial reasoned evidence to the contrary, it is evident that nothing will stop Respondent from practicing the treatments he has developed short of revocation of his license to practice dentistry. Such disciplinary action is also justified by the multiple violations of the Dental Practice Act proven in this matter, especially those involving grossly negligent care.

Accordingly, it is the Initial Decision of the Administrative Law Judge that Respondent's license to practice dentistry in the State of Colorado is revoked.

This article was revised on January 21, 2011.

Make a Donation | Search All of Our Affiliated Sites | Home

Ask your dentist for the material safety data sheet listing all of the ingredients in your crown. It is your right to have this information.

Report them to the local health authorities if they do not comply. Dentsply International (also has a presence in China now) holds the original US Patent for the technology of adding fluorescent Uranium to ceramic used to make artificial teeth. Current nanoceramic technology associated with dentistry likely utilizes chemically toxic and radioactive heavy metal powders. "Ceramic" isn't what you thought it was.

The best way to determine your exposure to toxic heavy metals is not through hair analysis but via a urine challenge test which you can have done through your GP. Also research biocompatible dentistry and then look into Dr. Huggins practice in Colorado for more info as well. You can always sue your dentist or the lab on a breach of contract basis if you discover your crowns are made with toxic heavy metals.

You did not agree to have poison placed in your mouth. Good luck and spread the word.

What is wrong is that you you need to report this to someone in order to make them realize that they cannot continue these practices. As long as the dissatisfied remain silent, they will continue these practices. STAND UP AND LET THEM YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LET THEM DO THIS TO YOU!!!!!

Same thing happened to me! I had 8 "cavities" that would cost $900 to fill AFTER insurance.

She then immediately asked me how I would like to pay for all these procedures. Ridiculous!

After they messed up my appointment 3 times, I was ready to get out of there!! The office manager didn't even explain the procedures.