Boy ‘suffered seizure like episodes’ after being treated by TikTok orthodontist behind ‘Mewing’ technique

Parents said they feared a ‘b******ing’ from the Dr Mike Mew if they stopped the treatment early, a misconduct hearing was told

Orthodontist Dr Mike Mew, who is facing a misconduct hearing (PA Wire)

A six-year-old boy suffered “seizure-like episodes” while being treated by an orthodontist whose unorthodox ways of reshaping people’s jawlines have gone viral online, a tribunal has heard.

Dr Mike Mew, whose “mewing” techniques have been viewed 1.7 billion times on TikTok, could be struck off by the General Dental Council over treatment which he carried out on the boy, who was born premature at just 29 weeks, and a six-year-old girl.

The method, which is named after his father Professor John Mew, purports to lift the jawline, alleviate jaw and mouth muscle pain and improve sleep.

It is feared people who need surgery or orthodontic work will instead try to fix the issue by themselves.

The boy, known only as Patient B, was fitted in 2018 with head and neck gear which needed to be worn for at least eight hours a day, an “expansion appliance” which had to stay on for at least 18 hours and “removable upper and lower appliances” which could only be removed when he was brushing his teeth.

A misconduct hearing in Bloomsbury, London, was told the boy struggled to keep the devices on this long and the episodes were triggered if he was pushed too far to wear them.

Qualified dentist Aliyah Janmohamed, who worked with Dr Mew at his clinic in Purley, south London, between June 2017 and January 2019, said: “Sometimes Patient B has post-traumatic episodes following past medical interventions.

“He would have the seizure-like episodes if pushed too far so mum and dad were having issues.”

His mother became so concerned she took him to Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital because she believed he had tooth cavities and was showing signs of gum disease.

The hearing was also told the treatment, which had a price tag of £12,500 for 36 months, risked causing his teeth to fall out and led him to struggle to eat.

Mewing has gone viral on TikTok, with clips viewed by more than a billion people (YouTube)

Ms Janmohamed told the hearing patients’ teeth could fall out if the removable appliances were not worn during mealtimes.

She also insisted “significant damage” could be caused if the lower arch was turned once a day rather than the recommended twice a day.

“We stated the importance of eating with them (the devices) in order to avoid undue jiggling forces on teeth which may ultimately cause them to fall out,” Ms Janmohamed said.

She also urged the family to “persevere” with the treatment at the time or stop it altogether.

Ms Janmohamed added: “We explained it is really important he doesn't remove them whilst eating, continues to wear them and tries to wear them as much as he can.”

Dr Mew charges more than £12,000 for the treatment (PA)

His mother put off an appointment to avoid a “b******ing” from Dr Mew about why he would not wear it, the hearing was told.

She also told Ms Janmohamed in a phone call that Dr Mew “never listens” to her concerns and she was unhappy with his “one-size-fits-all” approach, adding that he was a “dangerous professional who needs to listen to his patients more”.

The tribunal also heard Dr Mew only stepped back from fitting the appliance on the boy when he was just two years old because the youngster did not have enough teeth at the time.

He said in a letter to the boy's parents in February 2018: “Thank you for bringing him back to see us again. The last time we saw him he was just two.

“When we took an upper impression with the hope we could make a simple expansion appliance, however he only had eight teeth.

“It was not possible to create an appliance due to lack of undercut.”

The GDC's lawyer Lydia Barnfather told an earlier hearing both children had “perfectly normal cranial facial development for their age” before treatment took place.

She argued the treatment was “not clinically indicated” and Dr Mew “had no adequate objective evidence” it would achieve its aims.

The tribunal continues on Thursday.