Report of State Board of Dentistry January 25, 2013

Minutes- There were some issues with the acceptance of the minutes due to Board members clarifying their remarks. Among the issues was an exchange regarding the Community Dental Health Coordinator (CDHC) pilot program at Temple University being overseen by Dean Ismail at Temple.  At a previous meeting, Dean Ismail had corresponded with the State board asking if they wanted to join his efforts in changing the dental law. The board voted and responded to Dean Ismail that they did NOT wish to join in any legislative initiative  but they wanted to be kept abreast of the status of such efforts.  The Dean’s response according to one board member was, “ it’s unfortunate because the (State) Board is more interested in the status quo than moving ahead like other states.”

Report of the Prosecutor

1)     The first case involved a pedodontist and a three year old patient who was treated for decay on three primary teeth without radiographs having been taken or entries having been made in the patient chart. Three days later another dentist performed two extractions on those teeth after taking radiographs. The consent agreement involved; a) a public reprimand b) an agreement  to pay a civil penalty of $3000 and c) additional Continuing Education on record keeping and diagnosis of oral pathology

2)     This case involved allegations of a dentist who reported to work in an impaired state due to alcohol. The dentist has been under a temporary immediate suspension and has not worked since that date. That suspension was issued Sept 14, 2012 and they last for 180 days maximum. The Board noted that the suspension can last longer if the dentist asks for a delay or postponement. The Board prosecutor noted that the defendant dentist has had an evaluation, enrolled in the Physician’s Health Program (PHP) the program run by the Pennsylvania Medical Society for impaired professionals and spent two weeks at an inpatient facility and has been sober since July 19, 2012. The dentist was evaluated and found NOT to be safe unless he was monitored. The consent agreement called for an indefinite suspension with a 5 year minimum. This suspension is deemed to have begun September 14, 2012 and the dentist has served four months of it. The remainder of the suspension was stayed in favor of probation. The dentist in question can’t practice until the Disciplinary Monitoring Unit (DMU) approves. This monitoring will check random bodily fluids and if the dentist fails a test or fails to appear for a test he will begin to serve an immediate active suspension.

3)     This involved a dentist whose license was previously suspended. The SBOD had a consent agreement with the dentist agreeing to an indefinite suspension until the criminal matter was settled and it ended in 2012. The criminal case involved use of interstate commerce to lure a child for sexual activity and child pornography. He pled guiltyand was sentenced to a 15 year incarceration and a ten year sentence to be served concurrently. He agreed to a permanent voluntary suspension of his license.

4)     This case involved an oral surgeon licensed since 2003 who ran a practice form August 2009 until August 2012 when according to the prosecutor, he “lost it” when he was sued civilly for a business matter. The oral surgeon then developed paranoid ideation and sought treatment when he thought his office was being bugged. In August 2012 he closed his office which was damaged four months earlier when a vehicle smashed through the front of it. In pending criminal charges he has pled not guilty. He was offered enrollment in the Physician’s Health Monitoring Plan but failed to enroll. He admits to depression and anxiety and sees both a psychiatrist and a psychologist. The Prosecutor recommended an indefinite active suspension and to get his license back, he would need to; a) complete an evaluation b) have a complete neuro-psych evaluation c) continue his treatment d) enroll in PHP e) provide documentation of resolution of pending criminal matters.

5)     This involved a dentist whose audit revealed that he was short of the required Continuing Education (CE) hours by 5 hours. The Board recommended; a) a public reprimand b) $375 civil penalty c) 6 months to catch up on deficient number of CE hours. The amount of the penalty was based on Board guidelines. This matter was tabled for future meeting when there was a discrepancy as to whether the shortage was 5 or 10 hours.


Cindy Montgomery discussed House Bill 272 (HB 272) that was introduced on Jan 23, 2013 and referred to the Pennsylvania House Professional Licensure Committee. This is the same bill introduced by Rep. O’Neill in the last session regarding licensure of foreign trained dental faculty and compromise language based on input from deans of dental schools in Pennsylvania.

 She also noted that there are three policy statements on Amalgam Replacement, Tooth Whitening and lastly Botox and dermal fillers. All are under active review . The tooth whitening policy is awaiting the results of a court case in the 4th Circuit  between the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the N. Carolina State Board of Dentistry. A comprehensive update of regulations will be presented to the Board at the next meeting.

NERB Exam and perio

The Board examined a potential conflict regarding the requirement to take the periodontal part of the NorthEast Regional Board to get licensed. Last year the Board voted to accept any of 5 regional Board examinations as acceptable for licensure, among them the NERB. Since that time, the periodontal portion of the NERB has been an optional part of the exam and it was left to the states to decide whether or not to require it for licensure. There must be a regulation to require the periodontal portion of the exam if the Board wants to include it. One Board member noted a conflict in that it was a step forward to accept any of the 5 examinations for licensure but also voted to require the periodontal portion of the examination . It was noted that periodontal examination was still part of the written examination, just not the clinical exam. It was noted that the NERB exam does change over time having removed the denture portion as well as the gold foil requirement. In addition the amalgam has been replaced with composite. Another Board member stressed that they needed clarity for studnets and there were discussions regarding trends nationally. The Board will discuss it further at a later meeting.

Election of Chair

Dr. Lisa Deem was elected as Chair of the State Board of Dentistry and Dr. John Erhard was elected Secretary.

Respectfully submitted,

              Michael Kaner DMD JD FAGD