Rolando Estrabillo

Full Name:
Rolando Pineda Estrabillo
Registration Number:
10870
Current Status:
Member

Concerns, Conditions and/or Professional Misconduct

Practice Information

 

Primary Practice

Estrabillo Dental Group

201 Wilson St E Ancaster, ON, CA L9G 2B8
Phone:
(905) 304-6300
Sedation & Anesthesia Facility Permit:
Yes
CT Scanner Facility Permit:
Yes
View Facility Permits
See Hide All Practice Locations

All Practice Locations

  • Estrabillo Dental Group
    201 Wilson St E Ancaster, ON, CA L9G 2B8
    Phone:
    (905) 304-6300
    Sedation & Anesthesia Facility Permit:
    Yes
    CT Scanner Facility Permit:
    Yes
    View Facility Permits
See Hide Professional Corporation Information

Professional Corporation Information

  • Roland Estrabillo Dentistry Professional Corporation 201 Wilson St E Ancaster, ON, CA L9G 2B8 Phone: (905) 304-6300
    Certificate of Authorization Status:
    Current
    Certificate of Authorization Issuance:
    October 22, 2011
    Shareholders

Academic Information

 

Dental Degree

1987
University of Toronto, Canada

This may not be a complete record of the member's academic information or continuing education.

Certificate(s) of Registration

 

Current Certificate(s) of Registration and Date(s) of Issuance

General

Previous Certificate(s) of Registration

General
-
General
-
General
-

Initial Date of Registration

Sedation & Anesthesia Details

 
See All Associated Sedation & Anesthesia Facilities
  • Address:
    201 Wilson St E Ancaster, ON, CA L9G 2B8
    Phone #:
    (905) 304-6300
    Permit Status:
    Current
    Permit Type:
    Type A
    Last Inspection Date:
    November 26, 2020
    Facility Modality:
    Oral Moderate Sedation
    View Facility Permits

Dental CT Scanner Authorizations

 

CT Authorization:

Dentoalveolar and Craniofacial CT Scans

Complaints & Reports Outcomes

 

Case File: 150294

Decision Date:
April 11, 2016

Caution

As a result of its investigation of a formal complaint, the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee decided to caution Dr. Rolando Estrabillo as follows:

•    In this case, Dr. Estrabillo’s statement in a newspaper article about Health Canada’s position on dental amalgam use in children was false, inaccurate and misleading and did not correctly reflect Health Canada’s statement. The member is cautioned to ensure that any quotes used in an effort to support his views must be accurate. The member is cautioned that what he perceives as a small change in wording can have a significant impact on meaning and therefore he must be mindful of this when summarizing a position rather than using a specific exact quote.

•    Overall, the member’s advertisement was confusing and misleading to the public and suggested superiority over other dental practices. The member is cautioned that his advertisements should comply with the advertising regulations in order that the public is not misinformed.

•    The panel cautions the member that it is very concerned about his history of similar conduct and his failure to continue to apply lessons learned through the previous remedial action with respect to advertising. The panel cautions the member that in the future, if concerns about his advertising are again brought to the College’s attention, another panel may take more significant action beyond a caution. 

Case File: 180534

Decision Date:
June 04, 2021

Caution

As a result of a complaint, the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee decided to caution Dr. Rolando Pineda Estrabillo as follows:

• Your treatment of the patient in this matter failed to meet the expected standard of the profession. Your treatment planning and sequencing were inappropriate, and demonstrated poor professional judgment and clinical knowledge.

• An occlusal equilibration procedure is an irreversible, invasive procedure. Before performing treatment of this nature, it is incumbent upon you as dental professional to fully consider conservative treatment approaches.

• You failed to provide adequate follow-up for this patient. It was not appropriate to cancel the patient’s appointment, and refer her to another practitioner, particularly given that she was experiencing pain. In order to ensure continuity of care, any referral to another practitioner should have been accompanied by a letter explaining the treatment-to-date.

• Your response to the College did not demonstrate any insight or reflection into this matter, and it was confusing to the panel. You must ensure that your responses to College complaints are clear.

• It is expected that you will learn from this experience and the course in Prosthodontics, such that your practice will be remedied.

Specified Continuing Education or Remedial Program

Required Practice Monitoring - Office Visits
Practice to be monitored for 24 months following completion of course in Prosthodontics.
Current Status:
Completed
Required Course
Prosthodontics, including workups and diagnostics for occlusal equilibrations, and excluding implant dentistry

Case File: 180662

Decision Date:
March 10, 2020

Caution

As a result of a complaint, the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee decided to caution Dr. Rolando Pineda Estrabillo as follows:

• In this instance, Dr. Estrabillo recommended the extraction of the patient’s tooth 16 and replacement with an implant. This approach involved the permanent and irreversible extraction of the tooth, when root canal therapy was a viable option. The panel cautions Dr. Estrabillo that if he is recommending an option involving permanent and irreversible extraction when another option is available, that must be made clear to the patient, and the patient’s informed consent must be obtained in that context.
• The implant that Dr. Estrabillo placed for this patient at tooth 16 failed. This implant was too short. The subsequent implant that Dr. Estrabillo placed at the same site also failed. In both cases, Dr. Estrabillo did not adequately prepare the implant site in terms of sufficiency of bone. The panel cautions Dr. Estrabillo to ensure that these shortcomings in his implant treatment do not occur in future. In particular, he should involve a specialist in the patient’s care whenever there is any doubt as to his ability to successfully manage an implant treatment case.
• The core issue for the panel in this instance was that Dr. Estrabillo did not appropriately exercise his professional judgment in that he did not recognize, in a timely manner, the limitations of his work, and did not take the prudent step of offering the patient a referral to a specialist. Instead, he performed multiple procedures on the patient in an effort to repair the implant site and create more bone height. These procedures were physically uncomfortable and stressful for the patient, and were ultimately unsuccessful. As noted above, the panel cautions Dr. Estrabillo to involve a specialist in the patient’s care whenever there is any doubt as to his ability to successfully manage an implant treatment case.
• Dr. Estrabillo placed splinted crowns for this patient without the patient’s consent and contrary to their discussion in which she specifically consented to separate crowns. The panel cautions Dr. Estrabillo that his conduct did not meet the standards of the profession in that he did not obtain the patient’s informed consent for treatment, and the panel cautions him to ensure that this conduct is not repeated in future.

Discipline Results

 

Case File: H190013

Date of Decision:

Allegations:

Guilty
  • Charged excessive or unreasonable fees
  • Contravened a standard of practice or failed to maintain the standards of practice of the profession
  • Disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical conduct
  • Made a representation about a treatment, remedy, device or procedure without scientific/empirical basis
  • Recommended or provided an unnecessary dental service
  • Treated without consent

Penalty:

  • Reprimand
  • Suspension 10 months - effective May 15, 2021 to Mar 14, 2022
  • Imposed Practice Restriction Restricted permanently from performing implant dentistry
  • Imposed Course/Training One-on-one course on informed consent
  • Imposed Course/Training Professional/Problem-Based Ethics
  • Imposed Practice Monitoring (office visits) for 24 months following completion of course
  • $30,000.00 to be paid to College

Terms, Conditions and Limitations In Effect

Status: In Effect
Imposed Practice Restriction
  • Restricted permanently from performing implant dentistry
In Effect Since:
Imposed Course/Training
  • One-on-one course on informed consent
In Effect Since:
Imposed Practice Monitoring (office visits)
  • for 24 months following completion of course
In Effect Since:
Appealed:
No
Date Order Final:
April 28, 2021
Reasons for Decision
Decision Summary

Case File: H070001

Date of Decision:

Allegations:

Guilty
  • Contravened a standard of practice or failed to maintain the standards of practice of the profession
  • Disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical conduct

Penalty:

  • Reprimand
  • Suspension First interval of two consecutive months - effective Apr 18, 2011 to Jun 19, 2011
  • Suspension Second interval of two consecutive months - effective Aug 22, 2011 to Oct 21, 2011
  • Imposed Practice Restriction prohibited from using the CAVITAT Ultrasonograph Scan in diagnosis or treatment of patients
  • Imposed Practice Restriction shall not perform bone currettage except when necessary as part of a routine extraction or apical surgery
  • Imposed Practice Restriction shall not perform osteocavitation surgery without the express approval of the Registrar
  • Imposed Course/Training Oral Diagnosis and Treatment Planning
  • Imposed Course/Training Recordkeeping and Informed Consent
  • Imposed Mentoring Program
  • $10,000.00 to be paid to College

Terms, Conditions and Limitations In Effect

Status: In Effect
Imposed Practice Restriction
  • prohibited from using the CAVITAT Ultrasonograph Scan in diagnosis or treatment of patients
In Effect Since:
Imposed Practice Restriction
  • shall not perform osteocavitation surgery without the express approval of the Registrar
In Effect Since:
Imposed Practice Restriction
  • shall not perform bone currettage except when necessary as part of a routine extraction or apical surgery
In Effect Since:
Appealed:
No
Date Order Final:
December 01, 2010
Publications:
Published in Aug/Sep 2011 issue of Dispatch, the College's magazine for all registrants. (See link to Decision Summary)

Decision Summary

This information was obtained from the register of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (www.rcdso.org)