Constitutionality of section.

- See Hortman v. Yarbrough, 214 Ga. 693, 107 S.E.2d 202 (1959).

Provision regarding making or repairing dentures does not offend due process principles.

- Portion of O.C.G.A. § 43-11-17 defining making or repairing appliances usable on teeth or as teeth, unless ordered by a licensed dentist as part of the practice of dentistry, does not offend due process of law principles. Holcomb v. Johnston, 213 Ga. 249, 98 S.E.2d 561 (1957); Wrzesinski v. State, 271 Ga. 659, 522 S.E.2d 461 (1999).

Taking impressions or fitting plates as practice of dentistry.

- Taking an impression and fitting a plate made from such impression to the mouth of a particular person, and the doing of the acts necessary therefore, may constitute the practice of dentistry, even though making or preparing a plate may be purely mechanical. Atlanta S. Dental College v. State, 51 Ga. App. 379, 180 S.E. 620 (1935).

Accepting cash payment for examining person's mouth and gums and making alginate impression of the sort customarily made as a necessary preliminary to the manufacture of a permanent denture constituted the practice of dentistry. West v. State, 178 Ga. App. 550, 343 S.E.2d 759 (1986).

Charge of any sort for dental work constitutes practice of dentistry.

- When one charges a fee or salary or any reward, whether paid or unpaid to anyone directly or indirectly for dental work, such person practices dentistry. Rivers v. Atlanta S. Dental College, 187 Ga. 720, 1 S.E.2d 750 (1939).

Respondent's testimony admitting that services were performed for witnesses in making and repairing appliances to be used as teeth, and that the appliances had not been ordered by, or returned to, a licensed dentist, and respondent's statement that respondent had not charged a sufficient amount for services to realize any profit over and above material that went into the work and an amount to take care of the overhead expense since the respondent was enjoined in 1957 from practicing dentistry, showed that the respondent had practiced dentistry under the definition of the law, and the judgment of the trial judge finding the respondent in contempt of court was amply supported by the evidence. Hortman v. Georgia Bd. of Dental Exmrs., 214 Ga. 560, 105 S.E.2d 732 (1958).

Charge for expenses incidental to service constitutes practice of dentistry.

- All things incidental to the several kinds of service specified in the definition are to be included as overhead or part of the service; when charges are made for one or more of the overhead or incidental services necessary or convenient for operations specifically mentioned in the definition, the performance of such operations and charging therefor will constitute the practice of dentistry within the meaning of the statutory definition. Rivers v. Atlanta S. Dental College, 187 Ga. 720, 1 S.E.2d 750 (1939).

Examples of overhead or incidental expenses.

- Lights, electric current, water, laundry, obsolescence and depreciation in building and equipment, heat, repairs, printing and stationery, clerks, maids and the like, used by the practitioner in connection with a dental office, are incidental or overhead adjuncts, and inclusion of one or more of these in charges for operations of any of the kinds specified would bring the practice within the statutory definition; this applies whether the statutory definition is considered alone or in connection with former Code 1933, § 84-722 (see now O.C.G.A. § 43-11-20). Rivers v. Atlanta S. Dental College, 187 Ga. 720, 1 S.E.2d 750 (1939).

After state shows practice without license, burden is on defendant to establish right to practice.

- When the state makes out a case by proving that the defendant practiced dentistry without having obtained a license, this proof casts the burden upon the defendant to prove the defendant's right to so practice; the law makes the having of a license or other authority to practice dentistry a matter of defense. Jordan v. State, 77 Ga. App. 700, 49 S.E.2d 694 (1948).

Negligence per se in cosmetic procedure.

- Dentist's performance of elective cosmetic procedures to a patient's face constituted negligence per se since the dentist exceeded the statutory limits of the scope of dentistry. Brown v. Belinfante, 252 Ga. App. 856, 557 S.E.2d 399 (2001).

Dentist's action for declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking to prevent the board of dentistry from taking action against the dentist based on an opinion of the attorney general to the effect that certain procedures being performed by the dentist were not within the lawful scope of the practice of dentistry, was not barred by a failure to exhaust administrative remedies since the only way for the dentist to challenge the board's position was to continue performing the procedures, thereby risking criminal prosecution for the felony offense of practicing medicine without a license and/or the initiation of administrative proceedings to revoke the dentist's license to practice dentistry. Thomas v. Georgia Bd. of Dentistry, 197 Ga. App. 589, 398 S.E.2d 730 (1990).

Cited in Emory Univ. v. Porubiansky, 248 Ga. 391, 282 S.E.2d 903 (1981); Thebaut v. Georgia Bd. of Dentistry, 235 Ga. App. 194, 509 S.E.2d 125 (1998).

Dentist may prescribe drugs.

- Silence of statute as to authority to prescribe drugs means that the dentist is at the very least authorized to prescribe such drugs as are, at the time of prescription, generally accepted as being necessary or incidental to the dentist's practice of dentistry. 1968 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 68-62.

Allowable surgical procedures.

- Dentist performing a dental operation may also perform procedures which are necessary or incidental to proper treatment of the patient, provided the procedures are limited to the oral cavity, teeth, gingiva, alveolar process, maxilla, mandible or associated structures, or contiguous masticatory structures. 1996 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U96-3.

Acts constituting unlicensed practice of medicine.

- Performance of osteopathic adjustments of the cranial bones (cranial osteopath) for the treatment of temporomandibular (craniomandibular) disorders is not within the scope of a dental license under Georgia law, and the performance of such practice or procedure by dentists constitutes the unlicensed practice of medicine. 1989 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 89-49.

Performing thermographic studies of the cervical and lumbar spine and extremities is not within the scope of a dental license under Georgia law, and the performance of such practice or procedure by dentists constitutes the unlicensed practice of medicine. 1989 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 89-49.

Taking and interpreting x-rays to evaluate cervical spine relationships including flexion, extension and anterior-posterior views of the cervical spine is not within the scope of a dental license under Georgia law, and the performance of such practice or procedure by dentists constitutes the unlicensed practice of medicine. 1989 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 89-49.

Application to the neck, shoulders and back of physical therapy modalities such as ultrasound, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation ("TENS"), or galvanic stimulation is not within the scope of a dental license under Georgia law, and the performance of such practice or procedure by dentists constitutes the unlicensed practice of medicine. 1989 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 89-49.

"Trigger-point" intramuscular injections of local anesthetic into any muscle other than the primary muscles of mastication ( i.e. , temporalis, masseter, and internal and external pterygoids) are not within the scope of a dental license under Georgia law, and the performance of such practice or procedure by dentists constitutes the unlicensed practice of medicine. 1989 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 89-49.

Awarding disability ratings on factors other than those directly relating to jaw function ( i.e. , mastication (chewing) and deglutition (swallowing)), or to injury to the nerves that directly innervate the mouth, teeth, gums and jaws is not within the scope of a dental license under Georgia law, and the performance of such practice or procedure by dentists constitutes the unlicensed practice of medicine. 1989 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 89-49.

ALR.

- Constitutionality and construction of statutes or regulations prohibiting one who has no license to practice dentistry or medicine from owning, maintaining or operating an office therefor, 20 A.L.R.2d 808.

Liability of dentist to patient, 83 A.L.R.2d 7; 11 A.L.R.4th 748.

Single or isolated transactions as falling within provisions of commercial or occupational licensing requirements, 93 A.L.R.2d 90.