Copyright
2004
Dental Practice Board
of Victoria
all rights reserved.
15 October 2009
MAGISTRATE RULES AGAINST TOOTH WHITENING
A Magistrate, sitting at the Magistrates’ Court in Heidelberg, on 30 September 2009 found a beauty therapist guilty of a charge under the Health Professions Registration Act 2005 (Vic) of practising dentistry while not being registered as a dental care provider, in performing tooth whitening.
The Dental Practice Board of Victoria brought the charge against the beauty therapist after receiving a complaint from a customer who had undergone tooth whitening in August 2007. After the tooth whitening procedure, the customer suffered severe mottling of her teeth, marbled teeth, ulcerations to her gums and chemical burns. The Magistrate recorded a conviction and fined the beauty therapist the sum of $2000.
The trial held in March 2009 was the first occasion that the legality of teeth whitening was considered by an Australian Court. The Court heard evidence from Professor Laurence Walsh of the University of Queensland, that the use of high concentrations of hydrogen peroxide in tooth whitening poses a risk of “tissue injury if applied without protective measures and safe working procedures” that people with dental training can provide.
The Magistrate, Ms Crowe, ruled that tooth whitening constitutes an “invasive and irreversible procedure” and that as such, tooth whitening may only be performed by people registered as dental care providers.
A spokesman for the Board said that the ruling set a precedent and will better protect the public by ensuring that tooth whitening is performed only by people who have dental training to accurately diagnose the causes of dental discolouration, to diagnose oral health problems and who comply with infection control and hygiene standards.
The Magistrates decision has been appealed.
Looking for a dental care provider?
The Dental Practice Board regulates the provision of dental health care in Victoria. If you are looking for a dentist, dental prosthetist, dental hygienist or dental therapist, you can search for a registered practitioner by name or location.
The Board advises you to read advertisements carefully before choosing a dental care provider.
Keep the following points in mind:
• Beware of exaggerated predictions about treatment. Ask for proof of the claims that are being made.
• Read the small print. A practitioner offering a discount or other inducement must, by law, set out the terms and conditions of that offer.
• A person whose photograph appears in the advertisement may be a model, not a patient of that practitioner.
• Before and after photographs can be manipulated to exaggerate the effects of treatment.
• Be cautious about phrases like “No needle” “No pain” or “No drill”. Such “techniques” do exist, but are only suitable for a minority of patients.
• Be cautious about claims of advanced training in “Cosmetic Dentistry”.
There’s more on advertising on the Information page.
If you have concerns that a practitioner has not acted in a professional manner, you can ask the Board to investigate the matter. The types of issues about which complaints can be made include, for example: • misleading advertising; • poor infection control practices; • lack of consent to a procedure; • poor quality of work; • financial deception; • inappropriate treatment etc.
For details of findings that have been made against individual practitioners see Decisions.
