JADE sat down recently for a discussion with Frank A. Catalanotto, DMD, professor of community dentistry and behavioral science at the University of Florida College of Dentistry, about the value of dental therapy in the United States. Dr. Catalanotto began by noting that “Any discussion of dental therapy in the United States must start with a shared understanding of the facts related to implementation in the United States over the past 20-plus years. When presented with opinions opposing dental therapy, I always say the following, 'Here are my conclusions based on this evidence; if you have other conclusions, let’s see your evidence.' ”

He added that when opponents of dental therapy tend to express their thoughts, opinions, and feelings in opposition to dental therapy, they do so without citations, references, or objective data. Opponents use phrases like “irreversible surgical procedures” and anecdotes shared with legislators by specialists who provide dental care to medically fragile patients ignoring the fact that most dentists are reluctant to treat such patients and instead rely on myths and misrepresentation of existing data to argue against dental therapy.  Proponents of dental therapy base their support on a long list of publications, reports and objective data1 plus direct observations of the real-world successes we are seeing every day.

Dr. Catalanotto’s responses to a series of questions are below.

Should the dental therapist be a dental hygienist or non-dental hygiene based?
The evidence is clear from both Alaska and Minnesota that both models of dental therapy can provide high quality, safe, and cost-effective dental care.2,3 The Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA) dental therapy educational standards and the National Model Act for Licensing or Certification of Dental Therapists do not require training in dental hygiene. It is also important to consider the history of both programs in pondering this question. The Alaska model was developed with a goal of training local people to practice in their communities with accessible and affordable educational requirements; the development of this program was not subject to the compromises and politics of the legislative process. The Minnesota model, while working very well and effectively, resulted from statewide legislative negotiations between at least three disparate factions: the dental association trying to kill the legislation, the dental hygiene association vying to create career pathways for dental hygienists, and the grassroots coalition seeking to improve access to dental care for underserved populations. The compromised result was a four-year master’s level dental therapist. I believe there is a tangible cost to students for attending a four-year program compared to a three-year academic year program, such as Skagit Valley in Washington, or the two full-time calendar year program as in Alaska.

Read the full article about dental therapy at NYU Dentistry.