Schoolgirl left with ‘massive’ ulcer after ‘alternative treatment’ from controversial orthodontist

A six-year-old girl was left with a ‘massive’ stomach ulcer after receiving alternative treatment from a controversial orthodontist, a misconduct tribunal has heard.

Dr. Mike Mew was behind a TikTok “mewing” craze that claims to change the shape of your jawline without surgery.

He would have performed the ‘unnecessary’ jawline correction on children from the age of two.

The General Dental Council heard that Dr. Mew would equip his patients with “lower and upper arch extension aids” to help align the teeth and move the jawline.

His technique of “meowing” promises to help “get the full genetic potential” in patients’ facial features by shifting the position of the tongue and teeth.

Dr. Keith Altman, a maxillofacial surgeon, told the hearing that a former six-year-old patient of Mew’s, “Patient A,” was referred to him in May 2017 for a “tying of the tongue.”

Mew’s ‘mewing’ technique promises to help ‘get the full genetic potential’ in patients’ facial features by shifting the position of the tongue and teeth

The patient came to him because her mother was afraid that she “couldn’t move her tongue completely free.”

She was fitted with devices for the lower and upper arch by Dr. Mew, and had “devices on both arches, top and bottom,” and “both had centerline screws,” Dr. Altman said.

He said the patient arrived at her appointment that day with a “demure” look that he said was due to pain caused by an “ulcer.”

“She’d put on a huge, huge ulcer, but the mouth apparatus… she would have found it very, very painful.

“I explained to the mother that she shouldn’t wear those devices, that she needed to let the ulcer heal, and that’s why she didn’t need a tongue tie.”

The doctor was deputy medical director of Queen Victoria Hospital in East Grinstead.

Lydia Barnfather, from the GDC, questioned Dr Altman and said: ‘After seeing the patient at the time, you use the term ‘spread arches’ – what do you mean by this?’

Mew would have performed the ‘unnecessary’ jawline correction treatment on children from the age of two

“If you have an anterior open bite, you get some gaps between the teeth, so the gaps were enlarged unnecessarily,” Dr. Altman.

“You said that this six-year-old patient was in a ‘subdued mood’ and that this huge ulcer would have caused some distress. Were you concerned about her well-being?” asked Mrs Barnfather.

“Yes, of course,” Dr. Altman replied.

‘You said [the appliance] had centerline screws, can you just explain? You said you were concerned that the devices fitted to ‘Patient A’ were causing damage… you also noticed that a flesh band was traumatized?’ asked Mrs Barnfather.

Dr. Altman told the tribunal that the midline screw on the bottom device hit the oral tissue and that “the more the piece of tissue swells, the more traumatized it becomes.”

“If the child is expected to have the devices on 24 hours a day, then there’s no chance of healing that damage, so it just gets worse and worse,” said Dr. Altman.

Stephen Vullo, defending Mew, asked the maxillofacial surgeon, “As for the ulcer, you obviously made a note of it … remember the conversation you had with the mother about the ulcer?”

“It’s been a long time, but of course I would have pointed out to her that there was a fairly large ulcer and the best way to heal it was to completely remove the devices,” Dr. Altman replied.

“But you didn’t suggest any treatment other than removing the devices?” asked Mr. Vullo.

Maxillofacial surgeon Dr. Keith Altman said a former six-year-old patient of Mew came to him with a “demure” look, which he believed was due to pain caused by an “ulcer”

‘No, that would have been it [remove] the device,” said Dr. Altman.

“Would it be fair to say in terms of ‘orthotropic’ treatment that you may have heard of it, but would it be fair to say you’re not an expert?” asked Mr. Vullo.

“I have no concept of orthotropic treatment, but I recognize evil when I see it,” Dr. Altman replied.

Dr. Mew denies that his fitness to practice has been compromised by misconduct.

The charge relates to the advice and treatment he gave between September 2013 and May 2019 to two children, referred to as Patient A and Patient B.

Patient B was only two when his treatment started in 2013.

The hearing continues.