Controversial orthodontist behind ‘mewing’ TikTok craze is struck off and branded a ‘threat to public security’ by watchdog

A TikTok dentist who doesn’t believe in braces has been struck off after he shared ‘inappropriate and misleading’ information on a controversial dentistry practise on YouTube.

Dr Michael Mew is responsible for the ‘mewing’ trend, which has been adopted by millions of teenagers and consists of a technique that involves pressing your tongue against the roof of your mouth to change your jawline and face shape.

He has now been barred from the profession after he shared a video on orthotropics, a theory developed by his father which states that misaligned bites and dental problems can be fixed by muscle exercises and physiotherapy.

It was heard the dentist, who is the orthotropic practitioner in the UK, advised young children against braces, instead recommending neck gear and expanders so their teeth could ‘align naturally’.

The General Dental Council told a professional conduct panel that his advice caused ‘harm’ to two young patients, with one boy suffering ‘seizure-like episodes’ after receiving treatment. 

The panel ruled that the orthotropic treatment offered by him was ‘not clinically indicated’ and ‘not in the best interests’ of the children. As a result, Mr Mew was struck off after the panel concluded he was a ‘risk to public safety’.

The Dental Professionals Hearings Service was told by the GDC that Mr Mew used YouTube to share a video which had ‘inappropriate and misleading’ advice on orthotropics, on a channel which has amassed some 554K subscribers.

The panel heard that in the video, Mr Mew said that ‘if you create enough tongue space’, it can influence facial growth and subsequently an ‘expansion of the brain’.

It was heard that orthopetrics originated from his father, John Mew, and is not recognised or available within the NHS nor recognised as a speciality by the GDC.

The Professional Conduct Committee was told that in September 2016, the dentist treated Patient A – a six year old girl – by advising her to wear neck gear, and upper and lower arch expansion appliances.

Mr Mew said that the use of the appliances would ‘make way for the tongue’, ‘improve the midface’, and ‘change the swallowing pattern’.

The dentist said the realignment would correct the ‘oral environment’ by allowing ‘all the 32 teeth to align naturally without the need for fixed braces’.

He relied on the ‘Tropic Premise’, which said that ‘anyone who exhibits a number of features will have permanently well aligned teeth and good facial form’.

This included ‘standing up straight’ and maintaining a ‘butterfly bite’ – which involved resting the tongue on the roof of the mouth and swallowing.

Mr Mew told the patient’s parents that most orthodontists think orthotropics are bad and not evidence based – ‘but they don’t have any idea of what we do’.

‘For younger children it is also important to push many orthodontists into giving their opinion as to what may happen in the future, as it is too easy to sit on the fence and placate parents for years until it is too late to avoid extractions or surgery,’ he told her parents.

It was heard Mr Mew also recommended Patient A undergo a lingual tongue-tie release, which he said would allow her to rest with her tongue on the roof of her mouth and strengthen the jaw.

A year later, the youngster visited an oral consultant who found she had developed a large ‘open bite’ and a traumatic ulcer.

The consultant said the child should not have had the tongue-release, and the panel noted that some two years later, the open bite was still ‘unresolved’.

The panel heard the case of another child, Patient B, who was two years old when he was first seen by Mr Mew.

In 2018, when the boy was six years old, he was fitted with head and neck gear, and upper and lower arch expansion appliances.

It was heard that Mr Mew told the parents how he hoped the appliances would not align the teeth ‘but create an environment in which teeth will align themselves as they do in 5,400 species of mammals and our ancestors since the dawn of time’.

Patient B’s treatment was ceased within four months, after his parents were concerned about the ‘alleged harm’ caused by Mr Mew.

His father told the hearing that his son was having ‘seizure-like episodes’ after he was fitted with the gear.

Mr Mew was reported to the GDC after a consultant saw Patient A and became ‘concerned’ with what they saw.

It was noted that Patient A’s mother ‘remains a supporter’ of the orthotropic treatment offered by Mr Mew.

A disciplinary panel were told of how both children had ‘normal craniofacial development’ for their age when they first visited the dentist.

During the hearing, Mr Mew accused the GDC of making assertions that he is a ‘maverick’ and a ‘lone practitioner of orthotropics’.

‘The Committee has found proved that the Orthotropic Treatment you provided to Patient A and Patient B, when they were children, was not clinically indicated, not in their best interests and was liable to cause them harm,’ the panel concluded.

‘It also found proved that the misleading claims you made to the patients’ parents in correspondence concerning the need for treatment, your diagnoses, and the assertions you made about the benefits and outcomes of Orthotropic Treatment were inappropriate and on occasion misleading.’

Highlighting the aggravating factors, the panel recognised the ‘involvement of vulnerable patients’ and the ‘lack of insight regarding misconduct’, among others.

On the YouTube video, the committee said: ‘We found proved that the claims, you made in a video posted on YouTube in or about September 2017 titled ‘Orthodontics Beyond Teeth’, which included implying that you could increase the intelligence of a child, were inappropriate and misleading as they were made without adequate objective evidence.’

All but one of the allegations he faced were found to be proved.

The panel imposed an immediate suspension order after ruling the dentist is a ‘risk to public safety’ as he was offering treatments with ‘no objective base’.