Play all audios:
Sir, a 77-year-old male attended the Emergency Dental Clinic at the University Dental Hospital of Manchester (UDHM). The main complaint was an ongoing, non-specific facial pain of the right
face following extraction of the 16 two months previously. History revealed that the 17 had been removed four months prior to presentation due to similarly vague symptoms. The pain failed to
settle so the 16 was subsequently removed. The patient reported both teeth to have become mobile prior to extraction. Ten days after the extraction of the 16 he presented at UDHM with
ongoing persistent symptoms. He had already begun a course of antibiotics and was using chlorhexidine mouth rinses prescribed remotely via an urgent dental centre (UDC). Radiographs ruled
out any retained root fragments but clinical examination revealed an area of exposed bone. Conservative management advice was reiterated and two weeks later, the patient was seen for a
review. The pain had reduced but there was still discomfort in the area and the patient reported it to feel sharp on his tongue. The socket had epithelialised but a small fragment of bone
was present and this was removed under local anaesthetic. He was advised to return to his GDP for review. The patient contacted UDHM six weeks later with ongoing pain and a face-to-face
review was arranged. In that time he had not been offered a face-to-face review but rather been given a further two courses of antibiotics after remote UDC consultations. He presented with
moderate discomfort, radiating around the right side of his face which he was able to manage with simple analgesia. He had no extra-oral swelling, temperature sensitivity or tenderness to
chew. He reported no history of swellings. Examination revealed friable red and white speckled tissue fungating from the socket with adjacent ulceration extending around the 15 mesially and
17 region distally. There was an area of indurated tissue extending 1 cm into the hard palate with rolled borders. He had no risk factors in his medical or social history. A provisional
diagnosis was made of squamous cell carcinoma and an urgent biopsy was taken. Histopathology confirmed moderately differentiated SCC and he has been referred via an urgent pathway to
maxillofacial services. Reflecting back over this patient's history and clinical encounters there were signs that may have pointed towards a non-odontogenic diagnosis. Certainly, it
would appear there was no indication for repeated courses of antibiotics. The picture is further complicated by the number of clinical and remote contacts with different clinicians. We hope
this may serve as a timely reminder of the limitations of remote consultations and the possible consequences of a lack of continuity of care in any one setting. AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS
AND AFFILIATIONS * By email, Manchester, UK A. Srinivas, C. Moshkun & J. Darcey Authors * A. Srinivas View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
* C. Moshkun View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * J. Darcey View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google
Scholar RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Srinivas, A., Moshkun, C. & Darcey, J. Testing the limits of UDCs . _Br Dent J_ 229, 397
(2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-020-2226-y Download citation * Published: 09 October 2020 * Issue Date: October 2020 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-020-2226-y SHARE THIS
ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative