[Reform efforts in dentistry - national and international approaches]. / Reformbemühungen in der Zahnmedizin ­ nationale und internationale Ansätze.

The Study of dentistry in Germany is in need of reform. The actual regulation on licensing dentists in Germany is from 1955, with the last changes made in 1993. Recently there have been different initiatives related to reform: a national catalogue of competency-based learning objectives in dental education (NKLZ), changes and stipulations in the respective rules relating to undergraduate curriculum in dental medicine, and an initiative of the Germany Ministry of Health to tackle and reorganize dental education in Germany.This article presents and reflects on these reform efforts in the context of actual teaching in Germany, Europe, and the United States.The reform process is an opportunity for dental education in German faculties of medicine. New dentistry programs are allowed at all faculties with model educational programs in medicine. Therefore, an example of actual reform efforts are presented based on the experiences of Hamburg. Research on dental educational programs revealed interesting approaches in dental education in other European faculties of medicine. Selected faculties were visited. These experiences led to the formulation of five main goals of reform: interdisciplinary study, problem- and symptom-based learning, early patient contact, science-based education, and communication training. The main goal is a dental education program designed along science-based, prevention-oriented, multidisciplinary, and individualized dental care that contributes to the life-long oral health of patients.

How Will the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in North Carolina Dental Affect the Regulation of the Professions?

The contract between the public and the professions is between two parties; so it is reasonable to expect that there might be at least two perspectives when a ruling is given regarding the interpretation of the contract. The Citizen Advocacy Center recently convened a conference to look at the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the functioning of the North Carolina Dental Board in balancing protection of the public with availability of oral health services. New questions are being asked.

A Closer Look at the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners and Who Can Practice Dentistry.

On February 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a six-to-three opinion in favor of the Federal Trade Commission in their dispute with the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners concerning teeth-whitening services provided by nondentists. That decision was the culmination of almost nine years of arguments and allegations that began with a disagreement regarding the definition of the practice of dentistry. The ethical aspect of this dispute resides in the one's perspective regarding the motivation behind the actions taken in the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners.

What Contract? With Whom? For What Purpose?

The central point in the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the Federal Trade Commission's action against the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners was that they acted without proper supervision from the State of North Carolina in curbing commercial activity: issuing cease and desist orders to teeth-whitening businesses, for example. It appears unlikely that the law of the land will allow professions to enforce and may substantially limit a profession's voice in defining nearby commercial activity. The line between professional services and commercial ones is not clear. Vending whitening agents, as drug stores do, is commercial but may not be professional. Providing such services in the dental office certainly should be professional, but is also certainly commercial. As dentistry becomes more overtly commercial in nature, it is likely that the profession will have less say over defining and enforcing oral healthcare practices.

Regulators and regulations: who will guard the guards? (or 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes' as old Juvenal used to say).

Overbearing regulators with their various labyrinthine regulations have had adverse impacts on dentists and their teams' behaviours. This has produced the perverse outcomes of demoralizing dental teams as well as reducing their capacity and/or desire to deliver compassionate oral healthcare. These adverse outcomes do not seem to have benefited patients, or dentists, or their teams, in any sensible or measurable way. CPD/CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The vastly increased burdens on the UK dental profession of intrusive, bullying regulations, emanating from the various UK agencies, such as the supposedly fair and independent GDC, but including the increasingly politically controlled NHS and the CQC, have had unfortunate, perverse, effects on many dentists' clinical practices and affected dental teams' desires, or willingness, to be as compassionate as they used to be about helping to solve some patients' dental or oral problems.