AI tools are moving from pilot projects into daily dental practice. A fresh warning from the world's largest medical protection organisation says the law has not decided who pays when one of those tools causes harm, and the default answer may be: the dentist.
What happened
On 22 October 2026, Dental Protection, a trading name of the Medical Protection Society (MPS), called on the UK government to close a gap in product liability law covering AI in healthcare. The call follows the government's announcement this month that it backs all 44 recommendations of the National Commission into the Regulation of AI in Healthcare.
Dr George Wright, Dental Director at Dental Protection, welcomed the recognition that responsibilities for deploying AI need clarity. But he warned that, without reform, dental practitioners "remain at risk of becoming 'liability sinks' - being held solely accountable for any harm arising from AI systems over whose design and development they have little or no control." The Commission acknowledged the risk, he said, but stopped short of recommending changes to product liability law. Dental Protection made the same argument in its own report, Closing the AI Liability Gap.
Why this matters beyond the UK
The legal details are British, but the question is universal. AI tools for imaging, diagnosis support, note-taking and patient communication are sold worldwide, and in most countries the liability rules were written before they existed. When an AI suggestion contributes to a poor outcome, the injured patient will usually claim against the clinician in front of them, not the software company. Whether the clinician can then recover from the supplier depends on contracts and product liability law that often predate AI.
What a clinic can do now
- Ask your indemnity provider, in writing. If you use or plan to use AI tools, ask exactly where responsibility sits if the tool contributes to a harmful error. Do not assume the supplier carries it.
- Read the supplier contract. Look for clauses that exclude liability for clinical decisions, and keep a copy of what you agreed to.
- Keep a human in the loop, and record it. AI output should support, not replace, clinical judgment. Notes that show the clinician reviewed and decided are your best protection.
- Tell patients when it matters. If AI plays a visible role in their care, a plain explanation in the consent conversation builds trust and avoids surprises.
- Watch your local regulator. The UK debate will not be the last. When your own country updates AI rules for healthcare, the liability question will be part of it.
The practical point
AI can genuinely help a dental practice, and refusing it entirely is not the lesson here. The lesson is that "the software said so" is not a legal defence. Clinics that adopt AI with clear human oversight, written indemnity answers and honest patient communication get the benefits without carrying silent risk.
Sources
Read on 26 October 2026.
Dental Protection: Dental Protection calls for government to address AI liability risk in dentistry (22 October 2026)
Dental Business News: Dental Protection warns of AI liability gap for dentists (22 October 2026)
This post is general information, not clinical or legal advice. Spotted something out of date? Email ivorodental@gmail.com and we will fix it.
