FDI: 58 percent of associations report patient harm from illegal dentistry

A law exists in 95 percent of countries and is effective in fewer than half

The World Dental Federation (FDI) has published a two-page summary of its global report on illegal dental practice. The summary is not new research but a distillation of the already published report, cut so that national dental associations, regulators and decision-makers can use it as advocacy material for stricter rules.

The data come from responses by 49 national dental associations. Legislation regulating the practice of dentistry exists in 95 percent of countries, but fewer than half of the associations consider the existing measures effective. The gap between rules on paper and enforcement on the ground is described by a third figure: 58 percent of associations reported concrete cases of harm to patients linked to illegal practice.

The finding with the greatest consequences concerns visibility rather than perpetrators. As many as 62 percent of associations stated that they have no reliable data on how widespread illegal practice is in their own country. Without figures there is neither a priority for inspection nor pressure on the legislator, so alongside stronger enforcement the FDI calls for systematic data collection, public information and close cooperation between the profession and regulators.

Context

The full report deals with legal definitions, regulatory frameworks and the perceived effectiveness of measures against illegal practice, exactly the layer that formally exists in most countries and is rarely measured.

For the practice

• A patient who comes in to have work done outside an authorised practice put right is not only a clinical case: without a report to the competent chamber such a case never enters any record, and it is precisely the lack of data that the FDI singles out as the main obstacle.
• Photograph the situation as found before you intervene. Without that, a later report is hard to substantiate and your own responsibility is less clearly delimited.
• In conversation with the patient, separate the question of price from the question of authorisation: the argument is not that cheaper is necessarily worse, but that outside the regulated framework there is no accountability for the outcome at all.