The Evans-Appiah case did make many in the dental and medical professions sit up and take notice. You may be interested in the following GMC Fitness To Practice hearing:
http://www.gmc-uk.org/concerns/hearings_and_de cisions/ftp/ftp_panel_evan_appiah_20060928.asp
The other reports on the web tend to be fragmented and even sensationalised in parts.
All the same, although the report undoubtedly shows considerable negligence on the part of Evans-Appiah on a number of matters, two key issues revolved around Evans-Appiah's failure to administer further anaesthetic when it was necessary and the fact that he ordered the dentist to administer a local anaesthetic which contained contra-indicated adrenaline knowing that general anaesthesia had been induced with halothane.
Now, whichever way you look at it, these issues are down to incompetence and negligence on the part of Evans-Appiah. As a anaesthetist, he should have been aware of the interactions between halothane and adrenaline and the cardiac risk to the child. They do not allow us to conclude that inhalation anaesthetics used in a dentists are dangerous.
Competent dental surgeons are aware of the risks involved and this is the reason why such procedures are not solely left to those working in dental hospitals.