I didn't mean to trivialize your main concern--I just didn't get it.
    Understand that this is not legal advice.  If he truly treated you
without consent, this is battery.  However, just what constitutes
consent in a clinical setting is pretty much he said-she said in this
kind of situation.  If he told you that you had cavities and thought he
had given you a chance to respond and you did not, it could be construed
as tacit consent.  Obviously, if he began to treat and you objected and
he continued, we have a very different situation.
    As a practical matter, the choice of technique and material is a
professional choice.  Considering the sensitivity of this issue to some
people, I would consider it wise to discuss the options with a patient
if more than one is appropriate.  But it is the professional's place to
decide what treatment is appropriate.  It certainly is the patient's
prerogative to decline treatment.
    If you in fact think he really didn't fill the teeth, but told you (and
the insurance company) that he did, it's a very different story.  If
another dentist examines you and finds no fillings, the first dentist
quite likely committed fraud, which (unlike the nature of the consent)
is verifiable.
    Not to get into the subject, some folks are concerned with mercury (not
lead) in amalgam fillings.  In any case, if you got white fillings, you
received neither lead nor mercury.

Hope this helps,
Steve

PPO.  Slide in a few enamelplasty composites as full restorations to bill
for extra "stuff".

The only thing worse are the DECAPITATION plans ......