Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 54-901 (2026)
Definition — Practice of dentistry.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Definition — Practice of dentistry.
The practice of dentistry is the doing by one (1) person, for a direct or indirect consideration, of one or more of the following with respect to the teeth, gums, alveolar process, jaws, or adjacent tissues of another person, namely:
Examining for diagnosis, treatment, extraction, repair, replacement, substitution, or correction;
Diagnosing of disease, pain, injury, deficiency, deformity or physical condition;
Treating, operating, prescribing, extracting, repairing, taking impressions, fitting, replacing, substituting, or correcting;
Administering anesthetics or medicaments in connection with any of the foregoing.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1954–2011 · leading case: Berry v. Koehler, 369 P.2d 1010 (Idaho 1962).
Berry v. Koehler, 369 P.2d 1010 (Idaho 1962). “" Though the 1957 act here involved amends I.C. § 54-901, the statutory definition of the term "practice of dentistry," the actual effect of the amendment is not to redefine "practice of dentistry", but to redefine "mechanical work upon inert matter in a dental laboratory," a…”
Berry v. Dist. Court of the Third Jud. Dist. of the State of Idaho Ex Rel. Cnty. of Ada, 428 P.2d 519 (Idaho 1967). “Yancey in support of the averments in the affidavit submitted in the contempt proceedings. Berry submitted no evidence at the hearing.”
SUHADOLNIK v. Pressman, 254 P.3d 11 (Idaho 2011). “Smith, the plaintiff's expert demonstrated that the local standard of care for dentists was replaced by a statewide standard because the state licensing board required a patient history and because the Legislature codified these standards in the State Dental Practice Act, I.”
Idaho Ass'n of Pub. Dental Technicians Inc. v. Idaho Bd. of Dental Examiners, 550 P.2d 134 (Idaho 1976). “The Act does discriminate insofar as it excludes dental technicians from working on dental prosthetic appliances when such work requires the "presence, aid, assistance or cooperation" of the wearer.”
Grover v. Smith, 46 P.3d 1105 (Idaho 2002). “Grover points out that Fruitland is no longer a remote town in western Idaho; since the passage of the statutes in question twenty-five years ago, we now have the free exchange of scientific information and instant access to other dentists through the Internet.”
Bd. of Dentistry v. Barnes, 491 P.2d 1258 (Idaho 1971). “2d 1093 , held the then existing version of I.C. § 54-901 to be unconstitutional in part.”
Berry v. Koehler, 384 P.2d 484 (Idaho 1963). “I.C. § 54-901, as amended, reads: “54-901.”
State v. Oster, 274 P.2d 829 (Idaho 1954). “In a complaint filed June 5, 1953, plaintiffs, appellants here, alleged that defendant, respondent here, was practicing den *473 tistry without a license, as defined by Section 54-901 I.C., as amended Ch. 105, 1953 S.”
People Ex Rel. Dunbar v. Kogul, 501 P.2d 738 (Colo. 1972). “In that case the Idaho Supreme Court struck down a 1953 amendment to the Idaho Code, § 54-901, which required all work on dental prosthetics to be pursuant to authorization of a duly licensed dentist.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.