Use of microscope NOT for root canal treatment

Author:
greenzie
Posted:
ma, 01/04/2016 - 15:48
My tooth, which I already had a root canal and crown previously, was loose. When I went to my dentist last month, he mentioned that it is the crown that was loose and needs to be redone. This morning I went for that appointment and the dentist removed my loose crown only by pulling it out with his fingers. There is only a little bit of my tooth left there. Afterwards, he mentioned that there is a caries on the tooth, which needs to be cleaned and treated.

What surprised me is that he feels the need to use a microscope to do this treatment so he did use the microscope for only around 5 minutes to treat the caries on my leftover tooth. He then charged me "E86 Gebruik van operatiemicroscoop bij een wortelkanaalbehandeling". For my next treatment, which is building up the tooth to its normal shape, he also included the use of microscope E86 in the begroting. Bear in mind, he is not doing any root canal treatment at all. The root canal treatment has already been performed on that tooth 12 years ago by another dentist.

My question: is it justified for him to charge me the use of microscope E86 for what I assume simpler procedures that are non-root canal related? I really have the feeling that he is charging me just because he has a microscope and just because he can.

I would appreciate any input, especially from another dentists.

Thanks!!

PS: I am attaching the x-ray pic of my leftover tooth
Attach
Grappa

A clear answer no! She/he cannot charge E86 this according to the NZa, the Dutch Health Authority. You should contest this and refuse to pay.
This is a disadvantage of the Dutch healthcare system with a lack of transparancy. If your dentist refuses to cooperate you can post a complaint on the website of the NZa, www.nza.nl. Besides that your dentist by law has to have e procedure for complaints. In most cases carried out by the KNMT or ANT. Just ask with what organisation they are a member and post your complaint there.
wo, 01/20/2016 - 13:58 Permalink