Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Scope Of Practice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board opens discussion on myofunctional therapy, asks staff to return with implementation language
Summary
Following expert presentations, the board agreed myofunctional therapy can fit within the dental-hygienist scope provided practitioners obtain additional training and certification; members asked staff to draft clarifying regulatory language and return with a workplan (item to return on a future agenda).
After presentations from clinicians and subject-matter experts, the Dental Hygiene Board of California opened a substantive discussion July 20 about whether oral‑facial myofunctional therapy should be explicitly recognized within the scope of practice for registered dental hygienists and how to ensure consumer protection through training, certification and oversight.
Nerissa Bogand (presenter) described myofunctional therapy as a neuromuscular re‑education approach addressing tongue posture, breathing and swallowing, and said dental hygienists—given their training and patient contact—are well positioned to provide preventive and therapeutic interventions when appropriately trained. Dr. Kevin Adair (orthodontist) supported the therapy’s safety record and described clinical experience integrating myofunctional approaches in multidisciplinary care.
Board members discussed that Business and Professions Code section 1913 allows registered dental hygienists to perform procedures within their scope if they have completed appropriate education and training, and that therapeutic interventions are authorized under existing law so long as training and supervision requirements are met. Several board members and public commenters urged the board to set clear certification expectations and consumer-protection mechanisms rather than rely on unregulated practice.
Rather than vote on an immediate scope declaration, the board agreed to a procedural path forward: members asked staff to develop clarified language, regulatory options, and next steps (including examples such as the existing SLN/certification approach used for lasers) and to return with a proposal for the board to consider at a future meeting (the mover indicated a November agenda follow-up). Executive staff also noted resource constraints and recommended building a detailed scope-and-certification proposal for board review and for inclusion of absent licensee members.
The discussion produced two practical outcomes: the board instructed staff to prepare language and an analysis comparing certification options (simple certification vs. statutory licensure categories), and the board placed the item on a future agenda for formal consideration.
