State Board of Dentistry
Meeting Summary
July 11, 2014
Prosecutorial Report
 Dentist was charged with six counts of a DUI. After completing rehabilitation, he
again was charged with a DUI and with public misconduct. He was incarcerated
for three months and was on probation. Consent agreement is for a two year
suspension and monitoring through the Voluntary Recovery Program (VRP).
 Dentist was charged with a DUI and trespassing. Consent agreement is for a fiveyear suspension and monitoring through the VRP.
 Dental hygienist falsely certified that she obtained the required amount of
continuing education credits but she fell seven hours short. Consent agreement is
for a $350 fine, public reprimand and a completion of the seven hours.
 Dental hygienist falsely certified that she obtained the required amount of
continuing education credits but she fell nine hours short. Consent agreement is
for a $45o penalty, public reprimand and a completion of the nine hours.
Board Counsel Report
Counsel reported that PSI testing agency, which administers the written examination for
Expanded Function Dental Assistants (EFDAs), submitted a report about the efficacy of
its current examination. PSI also expressed a willingness to work with the board’s EFDA
committee to make some revisions to the exam. Ms. Theresa Groody volunteered to
contact EFDA program faculty and other subject matter experts in order to develop
questions that PSI should consider adding to its exam.
Regulatory Counsel
 Governor Corbett signed HB 272 into law. Now Act 89, this legislation creates a
specific licensure category for foreign-trained dentists who teach in
Pennsylvania’s dental schools. Ms. Montgomery stated that she will draft a
regulatory package to fill in the “small gaps” that remained, but stated that HB
272 was comprehensive enough to “stand on its own.” Some board members
expressed concern that Act 89 does not factor in foreign-trained dentists who
assume teaching positions that are affiliated with hospitals.
 The draft regulatory package increasing civil penalties will soon be published in
the PA Bulletin for public comment.
 Counsel received several comments related to general revisions of the existing
regulations. The Dental Assisting National Boards would like the regulations to
mention its affiliated foundation as an approved continuing education provider.
Two dentists commented that the board should only require that an AED be
present in the building in which a dental office is located, not in the dental office

itself. The board held strongly to its believe that the regulations should require
that dentists have an AED in the office itself, not just “somewhere” in the
building. The board did agree that anesthesia permit holders should only be
required to have an AED or defibrillator, not both.
Counsel reviewed changes to the regulations for anesthesia permit holders. New
regulations clarify that dentists do not need a permit to prior to prescribing a
mile axiolytic agent to reduce pre-procedure anxiety in patients, povided that the
medications are not combined with any other sedative. The board discussed the
proposed requirement that all permit holders must use capnography when using
general anesthesia, deep sedation and moderate sedation. Dr. Eugene McGuire,
president of the Pennsylvania Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, stated that while
the pediatric dental community believes all permit holders should have
capnography in their offices, the use of such should not be required when
moderately sedating children. Dr. McGuire cited recommendations from leading
authorities in pediatric medicine and dentistry, and in anesthesia. He also cited
the AAPD’s guidelines which only state that capnography is a recommended tool,
but not a requirement when moderately sedating children. The board referred
the issue to the PSOMS Anesthesia Review Committee, which is scheduled to
meet in August.
Chair’s Report
Dr. Deem reported that the issue of dental practice ownership is currently based on a
case that was settled in 1937, which states that corporate ownership of health care
practices are not in patients’ best interests. She mentioned that she often hears
anecdotes from individuals who contend that non-dentist owners interfere with clinical
decision making, but that she has not seen any actual proof. Dr. Deem asked rhetorically
if the contention that corporate dentistry is bad for the profession and patient is more
perception than reality. She also cautioned board members to speak prudently, citing a
case in which corporate dental companies are suing faculty at a dental school in
Colorado for defamation.
Practice Ownership Committee Report
Dr. DeFinnis, committee chair, reported that the committee agreed to the following:
 The surviving spouse or heir should be able to own a dental practice for a year
after the dentist’s death or disability. The board conveyed to the committee that
draft regulations should allow the survivor to own the practice for two years.
 Non-dentists may own mobile dental units (many of which are operated by
federally qualified health centers and foundations).
 The board should pass regulation or a policy statement that makes clear that
dentists cannot enter into an agreement with non-dentists that allows the latter
to interfere with clinical aspects of the practice.
The committee still needs to address the issue of record ownership in the corporate
dentistry structure.
(Editorial note: The board discussed this issue at length during the public session.
There was some sentiment that the 1938 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Neil
v. Gimbel Bros. sufficiently states that non-dentists cannot own dental practices and
that the board has the ability to investigate and prosecute if a complaint is lodged
against a corporate entity. Dr. Deem was of the opinion that non-dentists cannot own
dental practice in Pennsylvania but some felt that the issue remains ambiguous. There
was some discussion about whether the board or others should pursue legislation to
regulate corporate practice and the relationship between non-dentist owner and
dentist. The board decided it could not pursue legislation itself, but those
representatives from organized dentistry in attendance were encouraged to look into
doing so. There is still a chance that the committee will draft regulations for board
approval. Representatives of corporate dental companies do not feel there is any issue
to be addressed—they insist that only dentists own those practices and that there are
guidelines, protocol and contracts in place to prevent interference from those offering
practicing management services.
As further reference, here is an excerpt from a letter from Mr. Timothy Gates, Esquire,
to the board, dated January 7, 2010. Mr. Gates is the former representative from the
Attorney General’s Office to the board.
“In Pennsylvania, there are no current statutes or regulations that specifically prohibit
the corporate practice of dentistry. That being said, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
has stated that ‘[t]he rule is generally recognized that a licensed practitioner of a
profession may not lawfully practice his profession among the public as a servant of
an unlicensed person or corporation; and that, if he does so, the unlicensed person or
corporation employing him is guilty of practicing that profession without a license.’
The Court also stated ‘[i]n the absence of statutory modification in favor of hospitals or
others…the same rule applies to physicians and dentists.’”
Probable Cause Committee
The committee discussed a proposed change to streamline the work of the committee.
The committee agreed it needs to see evidence of infractions before they can pass cases
through to the board prosecutors. One of the attorneys explained that the reason for the
proposed change was to expedite the process and eliminate the need for board members
to excuse themselves from final adjudication.
Next meeting date: September 5, 2014