Ark. Code Ann. § 17-82-105 (2026)
Sales of dental services or appliances
- Any person other than a licensed dentist who sells or delivers or offers to sell or deliver to the general public the services of construction, repair, reproduction, duplication, alteration, adjustment, cleaning, polishing, refinishing, or processing in any other manner of any artificial or prosthetic tooth or teeth, bridge, crown, denture, restoration, appliance, device, structure, or material or orthodontic appliance or material to be worn or used in the mouth is subject to the penalties and liabilities prescribed in § 17-82-301(b) and (c). This section does not prohibit selling or delivering or offering to sell or deliver any of such articles to a licensed dentist.
-
Any licensed dentist who employs or engages the services of a dental laboratory or dental laboratory technician or any other person, firm, or corporation to perform any of the operations or to fabricate any of the appliances or devices referred to in subsection (a) of this section shall furnish that person, firm, or corporation with a written work authorization which shall contain:
- The name and address of the person, firm, or corporation to which the work authorization is directed;
- The patient's name or an identification number. If a number is used, the patient's name shall be written upon the duplicate copy of the work authorization retained by the dentist;
- The date on which the work authorization was written;
- A description of the work to be done, including diagrams, if necessary;
- A specification of the type and quality of materials to be used; and
- The signature of the dentist and the number of his or her license to practice dentistry.
- The person, firm, or corporation receiving a work authorization from a licensed dentist shall retain the original work authorization and the dentist shall retain a duplicate copy for a period of two (2) years.
-
Any licensed dentist shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor and the Arkansas State Board of Dental Examiners may revoke or suspend the license of that dentist if that dentist:
- Employs or engages the services of any person, firm, or corporation to construct or repair, extraorally, prosthetic dentures, bridges, or other dental appliances without first providing the person, firm, or corporation with a written work authorization;
- Fails to retain a duplicate copy of the work authorization for two (2) years; or
- Commits any violation of this section.
-
Any person, firm, or corporation shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if that person, firm, or corporation:
- Furnishes such services to any licensed dentist without first obtaining a written work authorization from the dentist;
- Fails to retain the original work authorization for two (2) years; or
- Commits any violation of this section.
History. Acts 1955, No. 14, § 12; 1969, No. 91, § 3; A.S.A. 1947, § 72-545; Acts 2005, No. 1994, § 201.
Case Notes
Constitutionality.
Statutes requiring that dental laboratories deliver products through a licensed dentist are clearly a permissible exercise of the state's police power in the area of public health. The fact that the statutes prohibit an untrained and unlicensed individual from making dentures and selling them directly to the public does not violate the individual's due process and equal protection rights. Hulva v. Ark. State Bd. of Dental Exmrs., 277 Ark. 397, 642 S.W.2d 296 (1982).
Antitrust Liability.
Requirement that work conducted by denturists or dental laboratories be accompanied by a written work order, signed by a licensed dentist, gives rise to no antitrust liability. Brazil v. Ark. Bd. of Dental Exam'rs, 593 F. Supp. 1354 (E.D. Ark. 1984), aff'd, 759 F.2d 674 (8th Cir. 1985).
Since any efforts by the Arkansas Dental Association to induce its members not to join with “denturists” in the operation of a dental laboratory constituted nothing more than an attempt to obtain compliance with the law of the State of Arkansas, there could be no Sherman Act liability. Brazil v. Ark. Bd. of Dental Exam'rs, 593 F. Supp. 1354 (E.D. Ark. 1984), aff'd, 759 F.2d 674 (8th Cir. 1985).
Injunction.
Where defendant undertook denture servicing in violation of an injunction, he was properly held in contempt of court despite claim that injunction went beyond terms of this section. Brazil v. Ark. State Bd. of Dental Exmrs., 279 Ark. 41, 648 S.W.2d 476 (1983).
Regulations.
In enacting subchapters 1-3 of this chapter and § 4-29-401 et seq., the General Assembly meant to preclude denturists, acting in concert with licensed dentists, from owning or managing dental facilities where nonlicensed persons would make impressions for dentures; thus, the board was well within its authority in adopting and enforcing regulations defining the making of such impressions as the practice of dentistry. Brazil v. Ark. Bd. of Dental Exam'rs, 593 F. Supp. 1354 (E.D. Ark. 1984), aff'd, 759 F.2d 674 (8th Cir. 1985).