A fake review said the night guard I made shattered and cut a patient's mouth
This account was submitted by a healthcare provider and de-identified before publication. Details that could identify a patient or practice have been removed, and it is shared with the provider’s consent.
A one-star Google review claimed a night guard I fabricated shattered in the patient's mouth overnight. It said the shards cut their cheeks and tongue badly. The reviewer accused me of using brittle, substandard material. It described a bloody morning and an emergency visit elsewhere. The account was new and had reviewed several dentists with similar horror stories. Each review featured a device that supposedly broke and caused injury. The material described does not behave the way the review claimed.
Night guards from my lab are made from resilient materials specifically chosen not to shatter. In thirty years I have never had a guard fail in the manner described. No patient record corresponds to the injury or the emergency visit in the review. I cannot state publicly that this event never happened to any patient of mine, because that denial itself is a protected disclosure. HIPAA gives me no exception for defending my materials or my competence. The pattern of near-identical injury stories across offices marked it as fabricated. Recognizing the lie and being able to refute it are two very different things.
Even late in my career, a graphic injury claim carries real weight with prospective patients. Night guard referrals slowed noticeably in the months after the post. Patients asked, half-joking, whether their guards might shatter too. The revenue dip was smaller than the reputational sting, but both were real. After three decades I did not expect to feel defensive about my own lab work. The anxiety of an unanswered accusation surprised me at this stage of my life. It is humbling to be so publicly vulnerable to an anonymous stranger.
I reported the review to Google, citing the fabricated injury and the duplicate posts. The first report was closed with no action taken. I gathered examples of the same story on other dentists and filed again. Google removed the review after roughly six weeks and a second submission. I consulted an attorney who confirmed the post was likely defamatory but hard to pursue. His advice was to keep my documentation and respond only in generic terms. I have learned to treat these episodes as a cost of practicing in public.