Skip to content

General information only — not legal advice. Published by Edward & Amaury Solicitors, solicitors regulated by the SRA (no. 800525). How that affects what you read.

No Win No Fee

Think you have a claim? Time limits apply, so get a free case review from Edward & Amaury Solicitors today.

Start your claim

Nerve Damage After Dental Treatment Claims

England & WalesLast reviewed 18 September 2026

Nerve injury, such as numbness of the tongue, lip or chin, is a recognised risk of some dental procedures, so it is not negligent by itself. A claim arises where the injury was caused by poor technique, inadequate planning or scans, or where you were not warned of the risk and would have chosen differently.

Recognised Risk or Negligence?

Direct Answer: Nerve damage can occur even with competent treatment, so a claim needs evidence either that the dentist's technique or planning fell below the standard of a reasonably competent dentist, or that a material risk of nerve damage was not explained to you.

Experts review the records, X-rays or scans to see whether the nerve's position was properly assessed, whether appropriate imaging was taken, whether the technique was appropriate and whether the dentist recognised and responded to a problem. Where the procedure was carried out when a less risky alternative was available, or referral to a specialist was warranted, that too can be a breach.

Consent

Under Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, a dentist must take reasonable care to ensure you understand any material risks of the recommended treatment and any reasonable alternatives. If the risk of permanent nerve injury was not discussed and you would have declined or chosen another option, you may have a consent claim even where the treatment itself was competent.

Act Quickly

If you have numbness or altered sensation after dental treatment, seek an urgent review, because some nerve injuries are best repaired early and delay may reduce recovery. Keep records of your symptoms and how they affect eating, speech and daily life, and ask for a copy of your dental records.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is nerve damage after wisdom tooth removal negligence?

Not necessarily. It is a recognised risk of the procedure, but it can be negligent if caused by poor technique, missing scans or a failure to warn you of the risk.

What symptoms should I report?

Numbness, tingling or pain in the tongue, lip, chin or gum, altered taste, difficulty speaking or chewing, or drooling. Report them promptly and ask for a specialist referral.

Can I claim if I wasn't told about the risk?

Yes, potentially. If a material risk was not disclosed and you would have chosen differently had you known, a consent claim can succeed even where the treatment was performed competently.

Can nerve damage be repaired?

Sometimes, particularly if assessed and treated early by a specialist. Others are permanent. Your medical expert will advise on prognosis.

What do I have to prove in a dental negligence claim?

That the dentist's care fell below the standard of a reasonably competent dentist, and that this caused you harm you would not otherwise have suffered. An independent dental expert normally gives evidence on both. A recognised complication of well-performed treatment is not negligent in itself, but a failure to warn you of a material risk can be.

How long do I have to bring a dental negligence claim?

Generally three years from the date of the negligent treatment or, if later, the date you first knew the injury was significant and connected to it. Children have until three years after their 18th birthday. The court has a limited discretion to allow late claims, but you should not rely on it.

Can I bring a dental negligence claim on a no win no fee basis?

Often, yes, if a solicitor thinks the claim has reasonable prospects and is large enough to justify the costs of expert reports. Legal aid is not generally available. Under a Conditional Fee Agreement you pay no solicitor fees if the claim fails, and a success fee capped at 25% of general damages and past losses is deducted if it succeeds.

You May Also Be Interested In

Dental Negligence

The full dental negligence overview

Read more

Dental Implant Negligence Claims

Failed or badly placed implants

Read more

Root Canal & Restorative Dentistry Claims

Root canals, crowns, fillings and extractions

Read more

Medical Negligence

The full clinical negligence overview

Read more

What Is No Win No Fee?

How CFAs work in England and Wales

Read more

More guides on this topic

Missed Oral Cancer and Gum Disease Claims

Dentists screen for oral cancer and gum disease at check-ups, and may be negligent if they miss obvious signs or fail to refer suspicious lesions.

Read more

Where this applies: This page covers England and Wales. The rules in Scotland and Northern Ireland are different.

Sources for this page

Every rule stated above is based on the primary sources below. Each link goes to the legislation, court rule or regulator itself so you can check it. Last verified 18 September 2026.

  1. Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, s.58 (conditional fee agreements)

    The provision that makes CFAs lawful and enforceable. CFAs derive from this section, not from LASPO.

  2. Conditional Fee Agreements Order 2013, arts. 4–5 · in force from 1 April 2013

    Art. 4 caps the success fee at 100% of base costs. Art. 5 caps what may be taken from damages in personal injury at 25% of PSLA plus past pecuniary loss, net of CRU, at first instance.

  3. Civil Procedure Rules, Part 44 (incl. rr.44.13–44.17, QOCS)

    Qualified one-way costs shifting and its exceptions. Rule 44.14 was amended with effect from 6 April 2023.

  4. Limitation Act 1980, s.11 (personal injury actions)

    Three years from the date of the accident or the date of knowledge. Property damage such as a damaged vehicle is a separate claim with a longer six-year period under s.2.

  5. Limitation Act 1980, s.14 (date of knowledge)

    The three-year period can run from the 'date of knowledge': when you first knew the injury was significant and attributable to the act or omission alleged to be negligent. Central in delayed-diagnosis cases.

  6. Limitation Act 1980, s.28 (extension for disability)

    Time does not run while a person is a child or lacks capacity to conduct proceedings. For a child's personal injury claim the three years generally starts on their 18th birthday.

  7. Limitation Act 1980, s.33 (discretionary exclusion of time limit)

    A court can allow a personal injury claim to proceed out of time where it is equitable to do so. It is a discretion, not a right, and should not be relied on.

  8. Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11

    Doctors must take reasonable care to ensure a patient is aware of any material risks of a recommended treatment and of reasonable alternatives. Consent is judged from the patient's perspective, not by what a responsible body of doctors would disclose (the Bolam test).

  9. General Dental Council — Standards for the Dental Team

    The GDC's standards for all dental professionals, including consent, record keeping, treatment planning, communication and candour. Failing them is evidence relevant to negligence, not the legal test itself.

  10. Dental Complaints Service

    Free service run by the GDC that helps patients resolve complaints about private dental care. NHS dental complaints go to the practice, NHS England and the Ombudsman. A complaint does not stop the limitation clock for a legal claim.

Who wrote and checked this page

Written and published by
Edward & Amaury Solicitors (Edward & Amaury Ltd, company no. 12195443), regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under no. 800525.
Legal review
Checked for England & Wales by Edward & Amaury Solicitors — Solicitors regulated by the SRA (no. 800525) (verify on the regulator’s register).Review is recorded against the firm. The individual reviewer is not named on this page.
Review dates
Last reviewed 18 September 2026. Next review due 18 March 2027.

Fee rules change. California’s medical malpractice fee limits changed on 1 January 2023, and the QOCS rules in England and Wales changed on 6 April 2023. If you spot something out of date, tell us — we publish corrections.

Think you have a claim? Find out for free.

Reading the rules is the first step. Most claims have strict deadlines, and evidence is easier to gather the sooner you act. Tell Edward & Amaury Solicitors what happened and get a free, no-obligation review of your situation.

  • Free, no-obligation case review: you decide what happens next
  • Many claims are handled on a no win, no fee basis if the firm accepts your case
  • Takes about two minutes, and you can start with just the basics

Where this applies: This page covers England and Wales. The rules in Scotland and Northern Ireland are different.

Sources for this page

Every rule stated above is based on the primary sources below. Each link goes to the legislation, court rule or regulator itself so you can check it. Last verified 2 August 2026.

  1. Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, s.58 (conditional fee agreements)

    The provision that makes CFAs lawful and enforceable. CFAs derive from this section, not from LASPO.

  2. Conditional Fee Agreements Order 2013, arts. 4–5 · in force from 1 April 2013

    Art. 4 caps the success fee at 100% of base costs. Art. 5 caps what may be taken from damages in personal injury at 25% of PSLA plus past pecuniary loss, net of CRU, at first instance.

  3. Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, ss.44–46 · in force from 1 April 2013

    Ended recoverability of success fees and ATE premiums from the losing party. Did not create or regulate CFAs.

  4. Civil Procedure Rules, Part 44 (incl. rr.44.13–44.17, QOCS)

    Qualified one-way costs shifting and its exceptions. Rule 44.14 was amended with effect from 6 April 2023.

Who wrote and checked this page

Written and published by
Edward & Amaury Solicitors (Edward & Amaury Ltd, company no. 12195443), regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under no. 800525.
Legal review
This page has not yet been through independent legal review. It is written from the primary sources listed below, which you can check directly.
Review dates
Last reviewed 2 August 2026. Next review due 2 February 2027.

Fee rules change. California’s medical malpractice fee limits changed on 1 January 2023, and the QOCS rules in England and Wales changed on 6 April 2023. If you spot something out of date, tell us — we publish corrections.