Business ProfileforSt Louis Hills Dental Group, PC

The group has been great at cleaning and checkups, but they did not stand behind the dental appliance work of their former dentist. My wife had a crown replaced several years ago by a former dentist at the group, and it almost immediately caused problems (bite down issues, gum irritation, etc.). She went back several times to get it corrected, and the dentist did perform minor adjustments, but the root problem was never identified leaving my wife in discomfort, and the crown finally failed. My wife was recently seen by the new dentist at the group who immediately identified the issue (old crown made in-house with inferior material, and too much material was removed from the old tooth in placing the old one) and replaced the crown with one made outside of the group with better material - per the dentist. According to my wife, the new crown appears to be correct (no bite down issues, or gum irritation, etc.). While that is good, we ended up paying twice for the crown (full price on the second one, as the insurance only allows a crown replacement every 5 years). I did call the group, and got a "I understand", but did not receive an acceptance of fault, or break on the cost.

While I respect and appreciate the feelings of the patients husband, I would just like to say that he did not speak to myself, the office manager or the doctor regarding this situation. The charge for this replacement crown was in error and the refund process had been initiated prior to this review. I will not speak to the comments regarding prior treatment or what said by the doctor in office as neither the patients spouse or I were present for the discussion.

In reading the businesss response, my understanding is that they are implying that the information provided in my review is based on here say or didnt happen. If the person responding on behalf of the business had verified that the phone call mentioned in my initial review did take place during the week of 12/27/21 (by asking all employees working at the office during that period), it would have established who received my call and the subject matter thereof.In going on, I will assume that the business responder did not ask all of the identified employees about the aforementioned phone call, but still believes the businesss standing on this issue is correct based solely on the responses they received from the office manager and doctor. If so, I would suggest that the refund mentioned in the businesss response be held by the business (or returned by me if received). Next, both parties in an expeditious manner would then agree to seek a solution in small claims court or other legal venue where the here say could be separated from, or tied to fact in an equal way through the testimony of those persons mentioned indirectly in the review.I welcome the opportunity to identify the facts concerning this issue on behalf of both parties, and sincerely hope the business will as well.