Las Vegas business owner shares consumer warning after a second dentist found no problem with a tooth flagged for a crown

What happened

Veronica Markowsky, who owns a local bridal store and pays for her own dental insurance, told KTNV Channel 13 she is sharing her experience as a consumer warning. After her longtime dentist retired, she picked a new provider near her home from her insurer's list and went to North Las Vegas Modern Dentistry. She said she mainly wanted a cleaning and a look at what she called a tiny chip on one tooth.

Markowsky told the station she researched the office first and found 5-star reviews. She said the office was able to see her within about two hours. The visit took place July 20, according to KTNV.

An added screening at check-in

Markowsky said she was offered an additional screening for $39.95 when she checked in. She told KTNV she questioned whether she needed it, because she had no sores or cuts in her mouth and had come in mostly for a cleaning and to have her tooth examined.

The crown recommendation

After X-rays and an exam, Markowsky said the dentist told her the tooth was not bad enough for a root canal but would need a crown. A treatment plan she gave Channel 13 lists a proposed crown with an estimated patient cost of $620.80, along with a procedure identified as a core build-up. She said she had no pain and did not feel comfortable going ahead that day.

A second dentist reached a different conclusion

Markowsky said she went back to the office to get copies of her treatment plan and X-rays. She also sent the plan to her mother, who she said works as a dental assistant and handles dental billing for an office in Georgia.

According to Markowsky, a second dentist saw the tooth very differently. "He said there's nothing wrong with that tooth. It looks great," she told KTNV.

Questions about the insurance claim

Markowsky said she contacted her insurance broker, Daisy Garcia, and began asking what had been submitted to her insurer in connection with the July 20 visit. She then filed a formal appeal asking the insurance company to reverse a claim for recommended services that were not performed, KTNV reported.

Markowsky said she later reached out to the dental office about the insurance issue. In an email she shared with the station, the office manager said a corrective claim had been sent to her insurance company.

What the dental office says

Privacy limits on its response

North Las Vegas Modern Dentistry declined to discuss or confirm details of Markowsky's care. The office cited patient privacy laws and the lack of written authorization to talk about a specific patient's treatment, diagnosis or account.

On screenings and differing opinions

In a statement to KTNV, the office said oral cancer screenings are part of a thorough dental exam. It said any technology used in a screening supplements a dentist's visual and tactile exam and is not a diagnosis by itself.

The office also said a difference in treatment recommendations does not necessarily mean either provider lacked a clinical basis. It added that it welcomes and supports a patient's right to seek a second opinion.

Steps patients can take

Markowsky's advice is to ask questions before agreeing to a recommended procedure that makes you uncomfortable, especially one that could be costly or irreversible. She told KTNV she is glad she stopped before approving the treatment and got another opinion.

KTNV noted that patients can request copies of their treatment plan and X-rays and seek a second opinion from another dentist. For concerns about the professional conduct of a dentist practicing in Nevada, consumers can contact the Nevada State Board of Dental Examiners about its complaint process, according to the station. More local consumer stories are collected on our community page.

What to watch next

• The outcome of Markowsky's formal appeal asking her insurer to reverse the claim for services that were not performed. KTNV did not report a decision.
• How the insurer handles the corrective claim the office manager said was sent. The station did not report the insurer's response.