Beach Dental Omid Vatan Dds Dental Deception Anaheim California

The patient, jo d, who had filed the Beach dental report had done so before understanding the condition of her teeth and the treatments necessary to alleviate discomfort and potential for infection. Jo d was informed that her tooth was severely decayed and that we would do our best to salvage it. Once the decay was cleaned out, it was evident that there was insufficient tooth structure left to salvage her tooth. The only option was to extract and replace with a prosthesis.

Jo d was given an option where extraction would be performed and a bridge would be placed so that she would not leave the office with a space in the area where the tooth was extracted. This option was given for her benefit, to avoid the embarrassment of having a missing front tooth. Also, she was offered an interest-free loan to pay for her treatment on a monthly basis through a 3rd party financing company, rather than having to pay it all upfront, in which the office incurred the interest on her behalf. Again, an option that served her needs and accommodated her financial situation.

Jo d was informed that a period of time must pass before the healing is complete and an impression can be taken for a laboratory-processed bridge. She was advised to return a few weeks after this procedure for follow up and finalization. Apparently, she did not understand the process involved and the quality of service she had obtained, and filed a report the next day. She failed to return to the office as discussed, so I contacted her to discuss her concerns and the reason for not returning.

It was during this conversation with the patient that I realized that she did not fully understand what had taken place and the importance of follow-up appointments. After I explained, in depth, the problem she had presented to the office with and the services rendered to correct the problems, she understood and was very appreciative. It was after this that I discovered she had filed a report several months before. When I spoke to Jo d about this finding, she replied that she had filed it a long time ago and had forgotten about it. She added that she was very embarrassed to have made such a rash decision without having had discussed the situation first.

Jo d has tried removing the report since our conversation, but the company says that reports are never removed, only rebutted. However, this is a good example of how important communication is between any 2 people. Had Jo d addressed her concerns early on, she would not have incurred the discomfort she experienced and the embarrassment she had created for herself, and would have realized that she is obtaining optimal services, as should be expected from any health care professional.

I am happy to say that all misunderstandings and concerns have been resolved, and jo d has returned to our office to continue her treatment. She is very content with the services and professionalism of our staff and office, and has referred her family members.

The patient, jo d, who had filed the Beach dental report had done so before understanding the condition of her teeth and the treatments necessary to alleviate discomfort and potential for infection. Jo d was informed that her tooth was severely decayed and that we would do our best to salvage it. Once the decay was cleaned out, it was evident that there was insufficient tooth structure left to salvage her tooth. The only option was to extract and replace with a prosthesis.

Jo d was given an option where extraction would be performed and a bridge would be placed so that she would not leave the office with a space in the area where the tooth was extracted. This option was given for her benefit, to avoid the embarrassment of having a missing front tooth. Also, she was offered an interest-free loan to pay for her treatment on a monthly basis through a 3rd party financing company, rather than having to pay it all upfront, in which the office incurred the interest on her behalf. Again, an option that served her needs and accommodated her financial situation.

Jo d was informed that a period of time must pass before the healing is complete and an impression can be taken for a laboratory-processed bridge. She was advised to return a few weeks after this procedure for follow up and finalization. Apparently, she did not understand the process involved and the quality of service she had obtained, and filed a report the next day. She failed to return to the office as discussed, so I contacted her to discuss her concerns and the reason for not returning.

It was during this conversation with the patient that I realized that she did not fully understand what had taken place and the importance of follow-up appointments. After I explained, in depth, the problem she had presented to the office with and the services rendered to correct the problems, she understood and was very appreciative. It was after this that I discovered she had filed a report several months before. When I spoke to Jo d about this finding, she replied that she had filed it a long time ago and had forgotten about it. She added that she was very embarrassed to have made such a rash decision without having had discussed the situation first.

Jo d has tried removing the report since our conversation, but the company says that reports are never removed, only rebutted. However, this is a good example of how important communication is between any 2 people. Had Jo d addressed her concerns early on, she would not have incurred the discomfort she experienced and the embarrassment she had created for herself, and would have realized that she is obtaining optimal services, as should be expected from any health care professional.

I am happy to say that all misunderstandings and concerns have been resolved, and jo d has returned to our office to continue her treatment. She is very content with the services and professionalism of our staff and office, and has referred her family members.

The patient, jo d, who had filed the Beach dental report had done so before understanding the condition of her teeth and the treatments necessary to alleviate discomfort and potential for infection. Jo d was informed that her tooth was severely decayed and that we would do our best to salvage it. Once the decay was cleaned out, it was evident that there was insufficient tooth structure left to salvage her tooth. The only option was to extract and replace with a prosthesis.

Jo d was given an option where extraction would be performed and a bridge would be placed so that she would not leave the office with a space in the area where the tooth was extracted. This option was given for her benefit, to avoid the embarrassment of having a missing front tooth. Also, she was offered an interest-free loan to pay for her treatment on a monthly basis through a 3rd party financing company, rather than having to pay it all upfront, in which the office incurred the interest on her behalf. Again, an option that served her needs and accommodated her financial situation.

Jo d was informed that a period of time must pass before the healing is complete and an impression can be taken for a laboratory-processed bridge. She was advised to return a few weeks after this procedure for follow up and finalization. Apparently, she did not understand the process involved and the quality of service she had obtained, and filed a report the next day. She failed to return to the office as discussed, so I contacted her to discuss her concerns and the reason for not returning.

It was during this conversation with the patient that I realized that she did not fully understand what had taken place and the importance of follow-up appointments. After I explained, in depth, the problem she had presented to the office with and the services rendered to correct the problems, she understood and was very appreciative. It was after this that I discovered she had filed a report several months before. When I spoke to Jo d about this finding, she replied that she had filed it a long time ago and had forgotten about it. She added that she was very embarrassed to have made such a rash decision without having had discussed the situation first.

Jo d has tried removing the report since our conversation, but the company says that reports are never removed, only rebutted. However, this is a good example of how important communication is between any 2 people. Had Jo d addressed her concerns early on, she would not have incurred the discomfort she experienced and the embarrassment she had created for herself, and would have realized that she is obtaining optimal services, as should be expected from any health care professional.

I am happy to say that all misunderstandings and concerns have been resolved, and jo d has returned to our office to continue her treatment. She is very content with the services and professionalism of our staff and office, and has referred her family members.

By standing by his treatment, Dr. Vatan has restored my confidence in him and Beach Dental. His kind and courteous attention to my problem bridgework , even after 9 months, is proof to me that he is a dentist with integrity who cares about his patients

Jo d

Since this report, I have learned that Dr. Vatan is now and was then a legally licensed dentist to practice in the state of California. Today he called me and said he would fix the permanent bridge (which has been causing me pain and inflammation) so that it fits correctly, at no additional charge to me.

Jo d
buena park, CA