My history has been one where in 1991 I 'deferred' to dentist (Van de Ryte, Gentle Dental) to remove and exchange 'old fillings' that were NOT bothering me. Since then, it resulted in a continuing process of re-occuring cavities below the fillings (and subsequent refills) and LOSS of molars over a course of time in EACH and EVERY molar I had the 'old fillings' removed and replaced. Of ALL the molars I instead elected to NOT have 'old' fillings removed I have had no problems with those molars.
I attribute the LOSS of my molars to following Van de Ryte's (opportunistic) dental advice to replace 'old fillings' given it is ONLY the molars for which I DECLINED replacement fillings which have survived to this day. In 2010, a retrospective dental X ray analysis of my 1991 X rays substantiates this. It revealed that NONE of my 'old fillings' had ANY decay below them and did not need to be removed and replaced.
Although I did not know at the time when I first saw him in 1991 that his advice was BAD, in retrospect, my observational study over the course of time showing that it was ONLY the molars subject to HIS suggestions which all got destroyed by a continuing process of re-occuring cavities under all the fillings he suggested to remove and replace, in addition to a retrospective dental analysis of his initial 1991 X rays which reveal there was NO decay under my 'old fillings', coupled with the FACT that the molars I did not allow him to remove and replace 'old fillings' are the ones I STILL HAVE today, it does appear his suggestions to me were OPPORTUNISTIC. Hence, I would conclude that his 'treatment protocol' for me arose from NOTHING OTHER than his wanting to find EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN MY MOUTH.
At the time, I had gut feeling his advice to me was OPPORTUNISTIC (looking for employment opportunities in my mouth) which is why I DECLINED to let him remove and replace all the 'old fillings' he suggested. I wanted to observe the teeth I declined his treatment over the course of time to see HOW they fared compared to the ones for which I deferred to his advice.
Now that I find to this day that EACH and EVERY molar I let him remove and replace fillings for have resulted in loss of THOSE teeth. But the ones I did not let him touch are STILL GOOD, I feel that IF I had NOT gone to Van de Ryte at Gentle Dental, I would still have all my molars to this day.
That said, I would urge EVERY patient getting any advice for a treatment 'protocol' from Dr. V to get copies of your X rays and bring them to the Harvard Dental Faculty school for evaluation before following Dr V's suggestions. It was TOO LATE for me when I had my original 1991 X rays inspected in 2010 only to find that my suspicions about his giving opportunistic protocol were correct. Better yet, find another dentist.
He also ruined my veneers. At the time I got veneers with him, he built up wax models which just looked TERRIBLE. At the time, he had a technician working with him who had a 'good eye' and who undid his bad wax design to make a much more aesthetically pleasing one. So, I was happy with HER. However, when it came time to place the veneers, he had let the technician go where she did not work there anymore. On the day I was to have the veneers placed, Dr. V used a DARK glue to some of the teeth where the veneers there were darker than my natural teeth!
Between the time he screwed up the glue shade to the veneers, I was left with short filed teeth for about 2 weeks. I complained at front desk about the time duration. Later on, I found in my file a NOTE his secretary wrote to him (not intended for me to see but I found it in my file chart). The note said deprecating things about me such as: "Med history has zoloft (anti-depressant). She needs a double dose" (with a smirk smiley type icon next to the sentence). It also said: "I told her you were the best in the business and built you up."
Well, the guy most certainly was not 'best in business' for veneers. His aesthetic eye was so bad, the tech at the time had to redo his wax mock up model and he used the wrong shade of glue subsequent to firing her. Imagine that, having a tech helper more COMPETENT than him for veneers who demonstrated being competent and he sees to it that she does not work there anymore.
There was also a time where he had a GOOD Russian dentist working there and I really liked that dentist.
He extracted a tooth for me which was one of the ones infected subsequent to Dr. V replacing the 'old fillings' in it. I did not want a root canal and made that clear. The Russian dentist accommodated and extracted the tooth. Turned out his 'job duty' was to convince me to get a root canal instead and later Dr. V let that dentist go.
2 good dental practitioners working for him, he lets them go. Perhaps because they don't push hard enough to look for employment opportunities and just do what is best for the patient at the time. So, it does look he's going to keep the staff who push his protocol of 'looking to maximize employment opportunities' in one's mouth and let the honest competent staff go.
On YELP, he has plenty of bad reviews. A lot of patients (victims) find his work faulty. Little do they realize that it's probably planned to be faulty because REVISIONS will increase profit margin.
IMO, Van de Rydt is an OPPORTUNISTIC shark rendering faulty advice and shoddy work as to bring the patients CLOSER to needing more complex (and expensive) REVISIONS over the course of time. BUYER BEWARE!
I know this doctor: 25 years
out of 5 stars
