The aforementioned FTC report recommended a superior alternative to the current denture care delivery system, the practice of denturism. Denturism has been shown to offer American citizens a much higher standard of denture care. What is denturism? Denturism is defined as the practice of non-dentists who fit, fabricate and deliver dentures directly to the public. Denturism has been practiced for over fifty years and has been proven the most efficient and cost effective denture care delivery system. Denturism is currently being practiced in over twenty countries throughout the world including Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, New Finland, the United Kingdom, and six states in the U.S.

In order to protect its monopoly, organized dentistry has for decades, been able to subvert the efforts of denturism to expand into most areas of the U.S. One of dentistry's ploys used to fool the public is to invent non-substantiated health scares. A few examples are: "Denturist's will spread aids to their patients" and "more people will get oral cancer." Dentistry has also claimed that if instituted, that the denturist profession would cause an American job shortage, would cause a tax burden and that denturists themselves would use radioactive isotopes to inject into their patients. Another falsehood is, "after denturism became legal in other states, dentures made by denturists have risen in cost, equal to that of which dentists charge. All the negative claims made by dentistry in order to protect its monopoly have been produced without evidence. All their claims have been proven to be invalid by health ministers, oral pathologists, the American Cancer Society, surgeon generals, state legislative studies and by senior citizen and consumer survey reports. However, the best testimonial for the profession of denturism is their flawless track record. The truth remains; denturists are highly trained health professionals. They have come from the upper ranks of denture craftsman. They produce a better end product. They have been known to satisfy their patients at a much higher standard. And they can deliver a set of dentures to the public at half the cost of that of which dentists charge.

Denturism is so popular in the eyes of the consumer that in state of Oregon it won on the state general ballot by the largest landslide that state has ever known. In Arizona, the denturist issue was so important to the public that Bruce Babbitt, at that time governor of Arizona, successfully wrote and introduced denturist legislation. In the state of Maine, one man, successfully introduced it, single handedly. In Montana, even though dentistry had spent over a half a million dollars to propagate a dirty and slanderous campaign, the denturist practice act was successful. The same success was repeated in the states of Idaho and Washington. Denturism is so practical and safe to the public that the Federal Trade Commission after conducting a five year study sent all state governments a letter of recommended rule-making; encouraging them to institute the profession of denturism in their state. You may be inclined to ask, if denturism is so advantageous to the public, why hasn't the profession been instituted into more than six states? The enactment of denturism laws has not been successful in more states because denture practice in each state is controlled by the state board of dental examiners, usually made up of 5-7 dentists. In essence, the states give dentists, themselves, the power to control anything that has to do with the oral cavity, even if it involves a conflict of interest with denturists.

The Main Problem in Our System

Back in the early twentieth century when state dental boards were originally set up within each of the states, they were intended to serve to the public's best interest. The intent was that these boards were to act as a policing entity to insure public protection, safety and professional ethics. The problem lies in the fact that all the rules that regulate the profession were created by a majority rule of dentists, the practitioners themselves. Each state board is made up of usually five to seven practitioners and sometimes includes between one and two consumer representatives. Many legislators and even attorney generals have testified that dental boards have their peer's best interest in mind rather than the consumers. That is why we hear of so many individual dentists getting away with child abuse, elderly abuse, negligent dental related deaths, consumer exploitation, insurance fraud, mercury poisoning and pollution, malpractice, molestations, unsettled procedure disputes and denture abuse, only to receive a light tap on the wrist from their state board of dental examiners. Now we finally have identified the root of the problem. The PEW Commission has brought this information to light many years ago. There are a few questions that as consumers, we must ask ourselves. How can the American consumers make a difference? How can they organize and align themselves in such away as to be able overcome this abusive stronghold? State boards of dental examiners throughout the country, are legally allowed to infringe on the American consumers right to choose, and on their right to privacy. Dentistry does not only control the denture delivery system, but also many other aspects of dentistry. The current system results in American consumers overpaying billions of dollars and in many cases they are abused or wind up getting inferior services. Where is the protection?

The PEW Commission has recommend that state boards of examiners be set up in a three, two, two, two fashion. An example would be, instead of having seven dentists making decisions, there should be a dominant consumer majority: three consumer representatives, two dentists, two hygienists, and two denturists. Decisions for each profession would be determined by a group of five, including two to represent the profession along with a consumer representation of three. This would prevent any conflict between the professions. An example of the current dental board structure would be just as detrimental as having an appointed group of car manufacturer executives or oil executives to determine the environmental standards for our country. We need to realize that dentistry is a business. It must be policed like any other business in order to serve the publics best interest. If dental boards were currently set up according to the consumers best interest, we wouldn't be hearing about so many children deaths in dental chairs, legionnaires disease coming from dental syringes, children having their arms broken by dentists and the like and with so little discipline to the negligent practitioners by state boards of dental examiners. Yes, these types of things are happening on a large scale in dental offices, daily, according to television programs like 60 minutes and 20/20. And why haven't they gone public with the thousands of elderly deaths that have occurred in dental offices. One could imagine, that dentistry is skilled in having such occurrences pushed into the natural cause category?

Unless a state has a strong lobby; powerful enough to influence the legislators to modify current dental statutes, such a task would be a complete impossibility. How could a group be organized that would have such specifics as their primary goal? After experiencing one failed attempt after another, one would think it rational that a way to be successful could be for the majority of senior citizens to lobby the AARP and other large organizations so as to convince them of the importance of having the dental boards of this country restructured. Consumers need to let groups like these know the importance of making such efforts their primary goal. If you are interested in becoming a part of this effort, it may be advantageous for you to become a lifetime member of the American Denturist Advocacy Council by making a, one time, $25 contribution. If you would like to offer your assistance or input, please CLICK HERE.