Dear Honorable Members of the Board of Dentistry,

I write to oppose the petition to create a pathway for dental assistants with 5-10 years of experience to take the Certified Restorative Functions Dental Assistant exam and have the employing dentist observe and approve of their capabilities to be a dental assistant II.

The duties delegated to the DA II in Virginia are those that are a part of the art and science of dentistry.  It would be a disservice to the patients in the Commonwealth to allow the proposed kind of practice.  Those who want to practice as a Dental Assistant II need to be educated in an accredited institution and supervised by unbiased practitioners before being allowed to perform such services on a patient.  Dentists do not have time to pay attention to the detail needed to teach such art and science while trying to run a practice/business.  Nor do all practicing dentists have knowledge of pedagogically or andragogically sound teaching principles.  

As a program director for a Dental Assistant II program, I have looked at the requirements of the Certified Restorative Functions Dental Assistant Exam offered by the Dental Assisting National Board.  This exam does not address the expanded functions of a dental assistant II as defined by the Virginia Board of Dentistry.  We must be quite careful to know the varying definitions and uses of the words "expanded functions."  For example, Tennessee views coronal polishing as an expanded function and one reserved for a certified dental assistant.  This is not the case in Virginia.  

While I fully support the maximum utilization of allied dental professionals, this needs to be done in a way that is going to ensure the highest quality of care for our patients.  The Board of Dentistry has a duty to protect the citizens of the Commonwealth.  Reducing the educational requirements of a DA II would be a dereliction of duty.  

Respectfully submitted,

Misty L. Mesimer, RDH, MSCH, CDA