Dental Professionals Hearings Service determination — substantive hearing
GDC panel imposes conditions on dentist Waqas Sikander over radiography and record failings
The General Dental Council's Professional Conduct Committee has placed 12 months of conditions on dentist Waqas Sikander's registration, finding misconduct in his radiographic reporting and record keeping and in treatment started on the wrong tooth. Dishonesty allegations were not proved.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 24 July 2026 · Updated 17 August 2026
Conditions on practice (practising with restrictions) — 1 year
Added to MedicWatch: 17 August 2026Report a correction
What does “practising with restrictions” mean?
Conditions of practice allow the practitioner to keep working but only subject to specific restrictions — for example, supervision, limits on certain procedures, or required reporting to the regulator.
Concerning Waqas Sikander, dentist (General Dental Council 249351).
Decision date: 24 July 2026 · Hearing started 2 September 2025 and ended 24 July 2026
In plain English
The GDC tribunal decided that Mr Waqas Sikander, a dentist, should practise under conditions for 12 months. The Professional Conduct Committee found that his fitness to practise was impaired by misconduct. It found proved failings in radiographic reporting and record keeping across a number of patients, treatment started on the wrong tooth, and a crown fitted without offering root canal treatment first. Allegations of dishonesty were not proved, and deficient professional performance was not made out. The Committee found genuine contrition and targeted retraining, but said his insight was still developing. The order takes effect immediately and will be reviewed.
Charges
The charge alleged that Mr Sikander's fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct and/or deficient professional performance while working as an associate dentist at a practice between January 2017 and March 2023. The clinical heads of charge, relating to Patients A to H and Patients 1 to 28, alleged that he provided treatment that was not clinically indicated, failed to obtain informed consent for it, made inaccurate radiographic reports or failed to make them at all, failed to take bitewing radiographs, commenced root canal treatment on the wrong tooth and provided poor treatment to it, failed to diagnose caries, crowned a tooth without offering root canal treatment, and failed to keep adequate records of extra-oral examinations, dietary assessment, the clinical appearance of caries, mouth cancer risk, Basic Periodontal Examinations and dietary advice. Two non-clinical heads alleged that between 30 September 2022 and 22 November 2022, and again between 16 August 2023 and 10 October 2023, he failed to inform NHS England of interim conditions imposed on his registration by the GDC and of their later amendment, and that this conduct was misleading and dishonest. A number of heads of charge were withdrawn by the GDC during the hearing, and Mr Sikander admitted a number of the record-keeping heads.
Findings
The hearing was held before the Professional Conduct Committee over two sittings, on 2 to 10 and 15 September 2025 and 16 to 24 July 2026, having adjourned part-heard. The Committee found proved that Mr Sikander provided Patient A with a filling that was not clinically indicated, made an inaccurate radiographic report and did not obtain informed consent for that filling; failed to take bitewing radiographs of Patient B; commenced root canal treatment on the wrong tooth of Patient G and provided a poor standard of treatment to it; failed to record that treatment; failed to record periapical pathology on a radiograph of Patient G; failed to diagnose caries in Patient H; failed to record widening of the periodontal ligament on a radiograph of Patient 22 and crowned that tooth without offering root canal treatment, the patient subsequently losing the tooth; and failed on multiple occasions across Patients 1 to 28 to record extra-oral examinations, the clinical appearance of caries, accurate mouth cancer risk, Basic Periodontal Examinations and dietary advice. Allegations relating to Patients C and E, and certain allegations relating to Patients G and H, were found not proved. The Committee found proved that he failed to inform NHS England of his interim conditions and of their amendment, and that this conduct was misleading, but it found the allegations of dishonesty not proved, accepting that the first failure was a genuine oversight arising from confusion over terminology and that he genuinely believed the second notification had been sent on his behalf. The Committee determined that the radiographic reporting failings, the failure to take bitewing radiographs, the wrong-tooth treatment, the failure to record treatment, the record-keeping failings other than those about dietary advice, and the failure to offer root canal treatment before crowning amounted to misconduct. It found that deficient professional performance was not made out, as the remaining matters did not represent a fair sample of his work. The Committee determined that his fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of misconduct, on both public protection and wider public interest grounds, finding that although he had shown genuine contrition and undertaken targeted continuing professional development, his insight was only partial, there was limited evidence that his learning had been embedded, and a risk of repetition remained. It rejected a reprimand as insufficient and suspension as disproportionate, and imposed a conditions of practice order for 12 months with a review shortly before the end of that period. The conditions require a Personal Development Plan agreed with a Postgraduate Dental Dean, a Workplace Supervisor, a Reporter, and monthly audits of record keeping, radiograph prescribing and radiographic reporting. The existing interim order was revoked and an immediate conditions order was imposed to cover the 28-day appeal period.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
The Committee identified the following mitigating factors: evidence of remorse shown, some insight and apology given; evidence of steps taken to avoid repetition; no financial gain on his part; and the time elapsed since the misconduct.
Aggravating factors
The Committee identified the following aggravating factors: actual harm or risk of harm to a patient; and that the misconduct was sustained over a period in excess of five years.
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.