Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-07-09
new DENTAL LAW /.
|Opinion Handed Down by
ATTORNEY General Phi|brook
As to Extent Unregistered Per-
sons Can Practice Dentistry.
Decision OF Interest to Members Of
Dental Profession.

In response to a request from L. S.
'nilcOtt, D. d. s., of Bangor, presi-
lent of the Board of Dental EXamin-
RS, of Attorney General Philbrook, for
an opinion as to what extent persons
who have not been registered in ac-
cordance with the dental law and have
not passed a satisfactory examination
before the board of dental examiners,
the attorney general Thursday handed
down the opinion, his letter to DR..
Chilcott being as follows:
"Your favor of recent date is at
hand asking for an official opinion as
to what extent persons who have not
been registered in accordance with the
dental law and have not passed a
satisfactory examination before our
board of dental examiners may lawfully
practice dentistry in this State by be-
ing associated with or employed by
Irregular practitioners. You also make
as a statement of fact the following:
1T is quite generally the practice for
dentist to employ assistants in their
Offices to help them in operating, to do
their laboratory work and to make
themselves generally useful You also
cite alleged instances where dentists
have employed unregistered men as
assistants allowing them to conduct
business on their own responsibility;
also where unregistered men have been
allowed to open an office and conduct
business on percentage basis in the
name of the registered dentist; also in
stances where registered dentists have
been detained from their offices by
illness or other causes and have placed
unregistered men in full charge of their
offices during their absence.
Unfortunately, as it seems to me,
the dental registration act of Maine
is not as explicit in its terms as it
might be nor does it attempt to define
it's own terms as occurs in the dental
registration acts of many other
States.
"Our act provides no person shall
practice, attempt to practice. or hold
himself out to be a practitioner Of
dentistry or dental surgery until he
or she shall have first received certi-
icate as hereinafter provided
"The act in question does not at
tempt to define dentistry or dehtal
surgery and our only source of legal
definition is in the decided cases of
other States which have a dental act
similar to ours. - "a
'"The dental registration act most
nearly resembling our own is in the
State of Arkansas and in that State
some cases have been passed upon by
the courts relative to violations of their
dental registration act. In ;Dne case
the respondent was a student in the
office of a registered dentist and it was
alleged that he had violated the dental
registration act in two instances; one
when he extracted teeth and the other
where he filled teeth. For the work
of extracting teeth no charge was
made. For the work of filling teeth
charge was made and the student
received the charge. The question
rose as to whether this student was
practising dentistry or dental surgery
and the court said in discussing the
the case that it was impossible to
escape the conclusion that the perform
ance of dental work and charging and
receiving pay therefor is practising
dentistry, and that although the re-
lation of student and preceptor existed
between the respondent and dentist in
whose office he was, yet so far as the
ltHIdi NOIk w dts CoICtIlltu TIE CIldTSc
was not made i'm the name of the regis
tered dentist nor was the pay received
by him, but, on the other hand. the
student made the charge for himself
and received the pay. Such conduct
was declared by the court to be practis-
ing dentistry and to be a violation of
the dental act of the State.
"Another Arkansas case furnished
the following rule of court: "A dental
student who performed dental work
without a certificate from the board
of dental examiners and received pay
therefor is practising dentistry. If
our court under a statute almost ex-
lctly like that of Arkansas. should
adopt the views of the Arkansas
court, which | am inclined to believe
it would, then those would be illustra-
tons of a violation of our dental
registration act.
"You will observe two distinct ele-
ments in these rulings of the court
first the performance of dental work;
second. charging and receiving pay
therefor. AS the second element is
easily understood we look little
further to see what the courts and
ltneT authorities nave Sdlu ABOUT inc
rirst. or, in other words "-r"+ is
dentist and what is dental work. -
lin a Rhode Island case We and the
following: A dentist is a dental sur
econ. He performs operations upon the
teeth and jaws. and. is incidental there
to, upon flesh connected herewith.
In a Michigan case, the court said:
Dentistry was formerly purely me-
chanical and instruction in it scarcely
went beyond manual dexterity in the
use of tools. A knowledge of the hui
man system generally and of diseases
which might effect the teeth and rem
der an operation important. was by
40 means considered necessary. Of
late, however, as the physiology of the
human system has become better I'M
derstood and the relation of it's various
parts and their mutual dependence
are more clearly recognized dentistry
has made great progress as a science.
In a Mississippi case the court said:
1t is true that the practice of the
dentists art requires the use of in
struments for manual operation, and
that o1,ch of if consists roau,1a