Joi · 1 out of 5 stars · 5 months ago
At the end of November, I came in for an emergency appointment due to severe pain from an infected tooth—specifically tooth 30, which had been chipped for several months. X-rays were taken, and Dr. Daniel Scialabba performed an oral exam, identified damage to the chipped tooth, and conducted a pain test by applying pressure. He also noted a separate cavity on tooth 31 and advised that it should be filled at a later time. I was prescribed antibiotics, with the explanation that the infection was causing the pain. The following day, I was still in significant discomfort and contacted the office to see if my appointment could be moved sooner. The office manager, Barbara, mentioned a pulpectomy as a possible way to relieve pain temporarily and stated they could fit me in despite a busy schedule. I agreed and came in for the procedure. It was only afterward that I learned the pulpectomy had been performed on tooth 31—the wrong tooth and one I had never complained about. My pain was always localized to tooth 30. Following this procedure, my condition worsened. Over the weekend, I developed facial swelling and an abscess in the area of the infected tooth. I sought a second opinion, where new X-rays were taken, and the staff took the time to walk me through the tooth numbering system so I could clearly visualize and understand which tooth was affected. Through this explanation, it became apparent that Taconic Dental had also scheduled the initial root canal for tooth 31—without my knowledge or informed consent—despite tooth 30 being the source of my pain. When I contacted Taconic Dental to speak with management, I was initially told the manager was unavailable. Shortly after, the same receptionist called back—not the manager—and stated she had spoken with Dr. Scialabba, claiming the procedure had been done on the correct tooth and that “there is no telling which tooth the pain initially came from.” As the patient experiencing the pain, this response was dismissive and inaccurate. I had clearly identified tooth 30 as the source of my pain from the beginning. When I asked about an extraction, I was told the oral surgeon would not be available until the following week. Due to escalating pain, my father had to call on my behalf. Only after expressing frustration was he given a referral to a facial and oral surgery specialist. The oral surgeon later identified a cyst beneath tooth 30 that was pressing on my nerve and causing the severe pain—something that should have been detected on the original X-rays. This oversight, combined with the incorrect procedure, lack of informed consent, miscommunication, and failure to verify the correct treatment site, resulted in unnecessary pain, complications, and financial cost. As someone who works in healthcare, I find this level of care unacceptable. Providers have a responsibility to double-check treatment sites and ensure patients are fully informed before any procedure—especially in emergency situations. This experience demonstrated a concerning lack of diligence and accountability. I would not recommend this facility for emergency dental care.
