Dental Professionals Hearings Service determination — substantive hearing
Struck off the register
The regulator’s term: erasure
What does “struck off the register” mean?
Being struck off (the regulator calls this "erasure") removes the practitioner from the register. They are no longer permitted to practise this profession in the UK. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite.
Concerning Jaroslaw Michal Iwanicki, dentist (General Dental Council 252779).
Decision date: 17 April 2026 · Hearing started 13 April 2026 and ended 17 April 2026
In plain English
The GDC tribunal decided that Mr Iwanicki's fitness to practise as a dentist is impaired by reason of misconduct and ordered that his name be erased from the Dental Register. The Professional Conduct Committee found proved charges relating to inadequate clinical care of two patients, poor record keeping, failure to retain and provide dental records, deletion of clinical photographs, and a sustained failure to co-operate with the GDC. The Committee identified a deep-seated professional attitudinal problem and concluded that no lesser sanction was sufficient.
Charges
That being a registered dentist, Mr Iwanicki failed to provide an adequate standard of care to Patient 1 (insufficient diagnostic assessments) and Patient 2 (poorly positioned brackets, poor upper arch outcome); failed to maintain adequate record keeping for both patients (justification, grading and reporting of OPG radiographs; indecipherable handwriting); failed to retain dental records, photographs and treatment records (including treatment undertaken in Poland and removal of braces); deleted clinical photographs of Patient 2; failed to provide records when requested by Patient 2 and the Practice; and from 22 June 2021 onwards failed to co-operate with the GDC by not maintaining up-to-date contact details and not responding to communications. By reasons alleged, his fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct.
Findings
The Committee found the majority of charges proved (all clinical care, most record keeping and retention, deletion of photographs, failure to provide records, and both non-cooperation charges), with charge 3c (study models) and 5a (handwriting on Patient 2 records) found not proved, and charge 2a partly proved. The Committee determined the proven facts amounted to misconduct, breaching GDC Standards 1, 4, 6 and 9. It found Mr Iwanicki's fitness to practise currently impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds, citing risk of repetition, lack of insight, and ongoing risk of harm.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
The Committee considered that there were no mitigating factors in this case.
Aggravating factors
Risk of harm in treatment of Patients 1 and 2; misconduct repeated over a significant period of time; blatant disregard of the GDC and the systems regulating the profession through non-cooperation and disengagement; adverse fitness to practise history (currently indefinitely suspended for clinical concerns of a similar nature); persistent lack of insight, with no engagement with the investigation and no evidence of insight into his conduct.
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.