Open Letter to the Health Minister of Alberta
Ignoring these concerns with the Alberta dental authority is not putting Public Safety First...
As sent by email Sept 29, 2024 (edited slightly below):
Dear Alberta Health Minister Adriana LaGrange,
RE: Ignoring global complications from dental device promoted and used in Alberta
As mentioned in the past the AGGA device - aka 'the anterior guided growth appliance' - is the subject of multiple lawsuits and US media coverage and was promoted by a seminar program closely tied to the Alberta dental college's former advertising client AURUM LAB of Calgary. The Las Vegas Institute seminar promoted the AGGA device as a cure for TMJ problems and breathing issues. It is believed many followers of LVI seminars followed these protocols. Oddly these seminar protocols were judged to be 'standard of care' by the Alberta college simply because they were taught by LVI seminars.
(I forgot to mention an LVI seminar enthusiast dentist was found to be acting as a tribunal panel member or 'juror' which should raise eyebrows)
It is erroneous logic to believe seminars can be trusted to provide suggested treatment or products that are safe for the public. The Alberta dental authority's representative on the CDA Task Force for the Future of Dentistry (Dr. Odenbach is now part of the Alberta dental association) would be aware of the concern about seminar content as they published a statement on this topic several years ago.
The Alberta dental authority processed at least one complaint but used an expert or consultant who was affiliated with the LVI seminar and has/had at least one council member who advertised as a 'graduate of the prestigious LVI program'. Combine this with the past Alberta Dental Association award - seen in image to the right- given to AURUM lab (LVI's official dental lab) and the fact that the U of Alberta's former professor Dr. Thomas was recruited by LVI seminars to be a speaker and the risk of bias is EXTREME against proper patient complaint processing.
Let's also consider the recent decision for the college to retain control of the dentist liability or malpractice insurance and ponder the risk to patients from this. This matter came up in Ontario's dental system and is referenced below as a conflict of interest.
The lack of dental training in Alberta's regulatory system could also be brought up as a concern as is the stark resistance to responding to any outside advice from experienced dentists with inside knowledge of the dangerous trends within the profession linked to certain seminars.
The most recent AGGA lawsuit is attached for reference (not included in this online version) demonstrates how the AGGA Las Vegas seminars have been able to reach out and harm patients in the UK (in addition to the USA, Canada and Australia).
QUESTION: Should the Alberta dental authority issue an alert to dentists and the public about possible harm from the AGGA device (advise an evaluation by a periodontist for typical complications of teeth pushed out of the bone) and isn't there a statute of limitations on liability that is ticking making it more and more unlikely that victims would lose legal rights to compensation?
As noted by online intelligence (ChatGPT) -seen below - this lack of action by the college tends to hook the authority into legal risks by possible intentional downplaying of this unapproved and overly promoted dental 'growth' device.
---
Why is it a conflict of interest to have a dental college (board) control the terms of a liability insurance plan? Could it be less inclined to support professional complaint investigations which would support malpractice lawsuits that then could put a strain on the insurance causing rates to increase? This question seems to have come up in the Ontario Dental college.
ChatGPT said:
Yes, having a dental regulatory body (college or board) control the terms of a liability insurance plan can raise concerns about conflicts of interest, primarily due to the dual roles of regulating professional conduct and managing financial risk related to malpractice. The core issues include:
- Conflicting Mandates:
A dental college's primary role is to protect the public interest by regulating the dental profession. This includes overseeing complaints and disciplinary processes. On the other hand, if the same body controls or influences the terms of the professional liability insurance plan, it may have a financial interest in minimizing claims to protect the sustainability of the insurance program. - Incentive to Downplay or 'Underinvestigate' Complaints:
If a college manages or influences the insurance program, it could be perceived as being less inclined to aggressively investigate complaints that might result in malpractice lawsuits. A thorough investigation that reveals negligence or wrongdoing could lead to higher claims against the insurance policy, potentially increasing premiums. To avoid financial strain, the college may face pressure to resolve complaints informally or with less scrutiny. - Erosion of Public Trust:
The public and complainants may perceive that the college prioritizes protecting its financial interests over holding dentists accountable for professional misconduct. This could erode trust in the regulatory process, leading to concerns that complaints are not being handled objectively or in the public's best interest. - Increased Legal Exposure:
If a pattern emerges where legitimate complaints are not fully addressed due to the financial interests of the college, it could open the door to broader legal challenges. Complainants who feel their concerns were inadequately investigated may pursue other legal avenues, creating additional pressure on the profession and insurance.
This kind of conflict was indeed raised in Ontario. Some critics have argued that when a dental regulatory body is closely tied to the insurance structure, it creates a misalignment between its role as a protector of public interest and its interest in minimizing the risk of expensive malpractice claims.
To prevent this conflict, many advocate for clear separation between regulatory functions and the administration of liability insurance. This way, regulatory bodies can focus on their public protection mandate, while insurers independently manage the financial risks associated with professional liability.
----
Bottom line:
The public is at risk from the current actions and lack of actions of the Alberta dental authority and the dental association. The organizations are deeply entwined with potential conflicts of interest which may paralyze them and prevent them from putting the public interest above their own.
Additional information
As mentioned above a popular former U of Alberta dental professor (seen in the left image) was recruited by LVI seminars to promote their brand of 'neuromuscular' or physiologic dentistry. As the years went by the program added various components such as a brand of orthodontics which engulfed the 'AGGA' as part of their TMJ and airway treatment protocols.
Lawsuits related to protocols taught by these seminars relate to treatment in the USA, Canada, Australia and the USA. Multiple instructors from LVI seminars are believed to have been investigated for professional misconduct. The former head of their orthodontic program was sanctioned and not allowed to practice orthodontics in her Australian practice.
Lawsuit updates:
https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/agga-appliance-lawsuit.html