Big Changes Ahead for the North Carolina Dental Board
North Carolina lawmakers are proposing major changes to the structure and oversight of the state dental board that could shift how board members are selected.
A new legislative proposal in North Carolina could significantly alter the composition and control of the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners, which would have lasting impacts on how dentistry is regulated in the state. If passed, the bill would reduce the influence of organized dentistry in selecting board members and shift the balance of power in ways that could affect both dental and dental hygiene professionals.
Currently, the NC Dental Board is composed of six licensed dentists, one licensed dental hygienist, and one public member. Dentists are nominated by their peers through a vote, with the top vote-getters submitted to the governor for final appointment. The hygienist is chosen through a similar nomination process managed by the dental hygiene community. Under the proposed legislation, however, these peer-elected nominations would be eliminated. Instead, the governor would appoint all board members directly, with suggestions from the General Assembly leadership playing a greater role.
This fundamental shift has triggered concern among dental professionals who see the current system as a model of self-regulation. Many believe peer-nominated board members ensure that those regulating the profession have firsthand understanding of the clinical and ethical complexities involved. Critics of the proposal argue that political appointments could introduce undue influence into a board that should prioritize clinical expertise and patient safety above all else.
One of the bill’s most debated components is its potential to alter the hygienist’s role on the board. Currently, hygienists have one designated seat, but the proposed legislation would allow for a broader pool of appointees—possibly diluting the guaranteed representation hygienists currently hold. For a profession that continues to advocate for autonomy and a stronger voice in policy decisions, this move could be seen as a step backward.
Advocates of the bill argue that the changes are necessary to ensure diversity, transparency, and accountability. By removing what some see as a “closed-loop” nomination system, they claim the board will be more responsive to the broader public interest. Yet many in the dental community fear that eliminating the peer-elected model may sacrifice clinical competence in favor of political expediency. Click here to read more.
