Dental Professionals Hearings Service determination — substantive hearing
GDC orders William Gamba’s erasure over clinical failings and practising while suspended
The GDC committee directed erasure after clinical-care findings and findings that Gamba treated 93 patients while suspended and failed to cooperate. Immediate suspension covers the appeal period.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 7 August 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 William Gamba, dentist (General Dental Council 67082).
Decision date: 7 August 2026 · Hearing started 27 July 2026 and ended 7 August 2026
In plain English
The GDC tribunal decided that William Gamba should be erased after findings of serious clinical failings, treating patients while suspended and failing to cooperate with its investigation. One allegation was not proved and another was withdrawn. The committee found current impairment and no evidence of remediation or insight. It imposed immediate suspension to cover the appeal period and any appeal, pending the erasure taking effect.
Charges
The allegations concerned clinical care and records for 15 patients between 2020 and 2024, providing dental services while subject to interim suspension between 16 and 24 May 2024 and putting patients at risk, and failing to respond to GDC requests for information between November 2024 and January 2025. The clinical charges were amended during the hearing.
Findings
The committee found numerous clinical and record-keeping failings proved, including inadequate medical histories and radiography, root canal treatment without a rubber dam, unjustified antibiotics and an inappropriate filling that caused actual harm. One allegation of recording no examination findings was not proved because some findings were recorded; one local-anaesthetic record allegation was withdrawn. It found that Gamba treated 93 patients while suspended and failed to cooperate with the GDC. It found misconduct in each of those three areas, so the alternative ground of deficient professional performance fell away. No dishonesty was alleged in relation to practising while suspended. It found current impairment on public-protection and public-interest grounds, with no evidence of remediation or insight. It directed erasure, effective 28 days after deemed service unless appealed, revoked the interim suspension and imposed immediate suspension covering the appeal period and any appeal.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
The Committee considered that the only mitigating factor in this case was that Mr Gamba has no previous fitness to practise history.
Aggravating factors
• There was a serious risk of harm to the patients who were treated by Mr Gamba, and actual harm caused to patient 6 by way of an inappropriate filling. • The misconduct was sustained and repeated over a period of time in that there were clinical failures, of a similar nature, in Mr Gamba’s treatment of the 15 patients over a significant period of time. The Committee also considered that Mr Gamba’s breach of his interim suspension was not an isolated incident, but a breach that took place over several days, in which he saw 93 patients. • There was a blatant disregard of the role of the GDC and the systems regulating the professions. This was in that Mr Gamba did not adhere to the interim order of suspension imposed on his registration for a period of 8 days, and in this time he saw 93 patients. He also did not cooperate with the GDC’s investigation. • There is a lack of insight on Mr Gamba’s part, in that there is no evidence of any remediation or reflections on 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.