Joaquin Arambula

Existing law, the Dental Practice Act, establishes the Dental Board of California to license and regulate the practice of dentistry, including the licensure and regulation of dental auxiliaries, including, among others, dental assistants, as defined, and sets forth duties and functions that those dental auxiliaries are authorized to perform. Existing law requires the board to require an applicant for licensure to successfully complete certain examinations. Existing law imposes certain requirements to take an examination, including a requirement to furnish satisfactory evidence of financial responsibility or liability insurance for certain dental patient injuries, as specified.

This bill would delete the requirement to furnish satisfactory evidence of financial responsibility or liability insurance for certain dental patient injuries.

Existing law also requires an applicant to furnish satisfactory evidence of having graduated from a dental college approved by the board or by the Commission on Dental Accreditation of the American Dental Association (CODA) . Certain additional requirements for a degree issued by a foreign dental school depend on whether the school was approved by the board, as specified. Since January 1, 2024, existing law requires foreign dental schools seeking board approval to complete the international consultative and accreditation process with CODA or a comparable board-approved accrediting body. Existing law exempts a foreign dental school whose program approval was renewed by the board before January 1, 2020, through any date between January 1, 2024, and June 30, 2026.

This bill would update cross-references to clarify that an applicant is not prohibited from taking an examination for licensure because their foreign dental school program was exempt from the accreditation requirement, as described above.

Existing law exempts an applicant from reexamination on a subject for which the applicant, in an examination taken in the prior 2 years, received a grading of 85% or above. Existing law requires an applicant, after 3 failed attempts to pass an examination, to successfully complete a minimum of 50 hours of education for each failed subject, as specified.

This bill would revise the subject reexamination exemption to instead require a grading of pass. The bill would remove the above-described education requirement for reexamination, and would instead require an applicant to retake the entire examination after 3 failed attempts at a section of the examination.

Existing law authorizes the board to grant a license to an applicant who has not taken an examination if the applicant, among other things, submits proof, under penalty of perjury, that the applicant has certain credentials. With regard to those required credentials, existing law specifies that the applicant has either been in active clinical practice out of state, as described, has been engaged in full-time nonclinical practice requiring an active dentist's license for an out of state public health program, as described, for at least 5 years immediately preceding the application, or has been a full-time faculty member in an accredited dental education program and in active clinical practice for a total of at least 5,000 hours within the past 5 years immediately preceding the date of the application.

This bill would revise and recast that credential requirement to clarify that 5,000 hours of clinical practice is required of an applicant who has been in active clinical practice out of state or an applicant who has been a full-time faculty member, as described above. For an applicant whose credentials are based on engagement in nonclinical practice for an out-of-state public health program, as described above, the bill would instead require the applicant to have been engaged in that practice for a minimum average of 40 hours per week, as specified. The bill would require each of the 3 above-described types of applicants to submit certain documentation verifying compliance with the applicable requirements described above. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law authorizes an applicant to meet the clinical practice requirement described above by submitting documentation that the applicant has agreed to teach or practice dentistry in California for a minimum average of 40 hours per week for 2 years in at least one accredited dental education program approved by the board.

This bill would revise that provision by removing the requirement that the dental education program be approved by the board, and instead specifying that the program be accredited by CODA.

Existing law requires a dentist to possess an elective facial cosmetic surgery permit in order to perform specified procedures. One category of those procedures is cosmetic contouring of the osteocartilaginous facial structure, and another category is cosmetic contouring or rejuvenation of the facial soft tissue, as specified. In this regard, existing law authorizes the board to issue a permit that authorizes the dentist to perform one or both of those categories of elective facial cosmetic surgical procedures. Existing law requires the board to appoint a credentialing committee to review the qualifications of an applicant for a permit and, upon completion of review, recommend to the board whether or not to issue a permit to the applicant. Under existing law, permits issued by the board may be unqualified, entitling the permitholder to perform either category of elective facial cosmetic surgical procedures, or may contain limitations if the committee is not satisfied that the applicant has the training or competence to perform certain classes of procedures, or the applicant has not requested to be permitted for both categories.

This bill would delete the above-described provisions relating to the limitations that may be imposed on that permit, and would instead authorize the committee to recommend that an applicant who has applied for a permit to perform both categories of procedures be issued a permit limited to one category if the committee is not satisfied that the applicant has the training or competence to perform both categories of procedures. The bill would specify that the committee serves at the pleasure of the board, and would authorize the board to remove any member of the committee for continued neglect of duties required by law, incompetence, or unprofessional or dishonorable conduct. The bill would authorize the board to convene in closed session to consider any evidence relating to the removal of a member of the committee, as specified.

Existing law imposes a fee on an applicant for licensure as a dentist in an amount equal to $1,500 or $1,000 depending on whether the applicant took and received a passing score on the clinical and written examination administered by the Western Regional Examining Board or the clinical and written examination developed by the American Board of Dental Examiners, Inc., as specified.

This bill would instead impose a fee on an applicant for licensure as a dentist in an amount equal to $1,000 regardless of which examination the applicant took and received a passing score on.

Existing law authorizes a registered dental assistant in extended functions licensed on or after January 1, 2010, to perform specified procedures under direct supervision and pursuant to the order, control, and full professional responsibility of a licensed dentist, including gingival retraction for impression and restorative procedures.

This bill would add polishing and contouring existing amalgam restorations to that list of authorized duties and make conforming changes.

Existing law requires a person seeking licensure as a registered dental assistant in extended functions to meet certain eligibility requirements, including completion of an extended functions postsecondary program approved by the board, as specified. If the applicant completes a program that teaches the duties that registered dental assistants in extended functions were allowed to perform pursuant to board regulations before January 1, 2010, existing law also requires the applicant to complete a course approved by the board in a list of specified procedures.

This bill would revise the list of procedures required to be covered by that course. Specifically, the bill would remove taking final impressions for permanent indirect restorations, would add performing post, core, and build-up procedures in conjunction with direct and indirect restorations, and would add polishing and contouring existing amalgam restorations.

Existing law establishes various requirements for courses in radiation safety and infection control for certain dental auxiliaries, including that the course establish specific instructional objectives, utilize objective evaluation criteria for measuring student progress, and meet certain requirements related to duration of instruction.

Existing regulations require a dental assisting program or course to meet certain criteria to secure and maintain board approval, including that the program or course director actively participate in, and be responsible for, the administration of the program or course, as specified. Existing regulations authorize the board to approve, provisionally approve, or deny approval of a program or course, as specified. Existing regulations impose specific requirements on a radiation safety course for board approval, including that the course provide no fewer than 32 clock hours of instruction, including at least 8 hours of didactic instruction, at least 12 hours of laboratory instruction, and at least 12 hours of clinical instruction. Existing regulations also impose specific requirements on a course in infection control for board approval, including that each student pass a written examination that reflects the curriculum content, which may be administered at intervals throughout the course as determined by the director.

This bill would modify the requirements for courses in radiation safety and infection control, and would codify those regulations with certain modifications, including, among other things, requiring that provisional approval for a course in radiation safety or infection control expire after one year or upon subsequent board approval or denial, whichever occurs first, and that the board provide, in writing, the specific reasons for provisionally approving or denying a course to the course director within 90 days of that decision. The bill would authorize the board to, in lieu of conducting its own investigation for a course in radiation safety, accept the findings of a commission or accreditation agency approved by the board, or its designee, and adopt those findings as its own.

This bill would authorize didactic instruction to be provided through distance learning modalities and would require providers to meet specified requirements, including providing technological assistance to students, as needed, to participate in instruction, and requiring didactic instruction to be completed before a student participates in laboratory instruction. The bill would require the course provider to, among other things, notify prospective students of the computer or communications technology necessary to participate in didactic and laboratory instruction.

This bill would also make nonsubstantive changes, including removing obsolete references to repealed provisions of the Dental Practice Act. 

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.