Dental Professionals Hearings Service determination — substantive hearing
GDC erases Todor Nenkov Nikolov over dishonest regulatory disclosures
The GDC committee directed erasure after finding deliberate concealment in dealings with the UK and Irish dental regulators. It imposed immediate suspension for the appeal period.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 8 July 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026
Erasure (struck off the register)
Data last checked: 22 September 2026Report a correction
What does “struck off the register” mean?
The regulator directed removal from the register in this decision. The decision explains when the direction takes effect and any appeal provisions. Check the official register for the practitioner's current registration status.
Concerning Todor Nenkov Nikolov, dentist (General Dental Council 175280).
Decision date: 8 July 2026 · Hearing started 6 July 2026 and ended 8 July 2026
In plain English
The GDC tribunal decided that Todor Nenkov Nikolov should be erased after finding two dishonest omissions involving dental regulators. He concealed his GDC registration when applying in Ireland and later failed to report the Irish regulator’s removal decision. The committee found insufficient insight or remediation and a risk of repetition. It imposed immediate suspension to cover the appeal period. His earlier indefinite suspension was a separate order.
Charges
The allegations concerned failure to disclose GDC registration when applying to the Dental Council of Ireland in June 2017, and failure to notify the GDC immediately of the Irish regulator's October 2024 removal decision. Each omission was alleged to be misleading, lacking integrity and dishonest.
Findings
The committee found all allegations proved: Nikolov deliberately concealed his GDC registration when applying in Ireland and deliberately failed to tell the GDC of the Irish removal decision. It found misconduct and current impairment, identifying a risk of repetition and insufficient evidence of insight or remediation. It directed erasure, effective 28 days after deemed service unless appealed, and imposed immediate suspension for the appeal period and any appeal. The earlier GDC indefinite suspension was a separate order; this committee did not review or revoke it. The interim suspension relating to the present case was revoked when immediate suspension was imposed.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
• Evidence of limited acknowledgment of wrongdoing.
Aggravating factors
• Potential risk of harm to patients. • Premeditated misconduct. • Financial gain by the registrant. • Misconduct sustained or repeated over a period of time. • Lack of insight. • Previous fitness to practise history.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Dental Professionals Hearings Service determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
Spot something incorrect?
If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.