Kenya Dental Association OPPOSES non professionals from pefroming dental procedures

KDA has called the publication unlawful and inconsistent with the Constitution and the Health Act, and has demanded its withdrawal, disclosure of the underlying expert reports and stakeholder consultation record, and an urgent multi-stakeholder forum.

It has also signalled litigation if the publication stands. The core issue is not only clinical safety. It is whether a professional regulator can expand scope of practice for a licensed profession through an administrative publication rather than through legislative or formal regulatory process with public participation.

The dispute became public on July 23, when KDA's National Governing Council issued a statement condemning a KMPDC publication reported to expand the scope of dental practice to non-qualified persons.

It named specific categories of clinical work at stake, referenced constitutional and statutory grounds, and set out four concrete demands rather than a general objection.

The immediate context is a profession asserting that a regulator has bypassed it on a decision directly affecting patient safety and the professional's own scope of authority. KMPDC is the statutory body responsible for regulating both medical practitioners and dentists in Kenya, which places it in the position of regulating the profession that is now formally opposing one of its own publications. That dual role is part of why this dispute carries weight beyond a single sector disagreement.

KMPDC is established under the Medical Practitioners and Dentists Act (Cap 253), which gives it authority to register and license medical practitioners and dentists, set standards of practice, and take disciplinary action against practitioners. Scope of practice for dentistry in Kenya has historically been defined by this statutory framework read together with KMPDC's own regulations and guidelines, developed through the Council's ordinary regulatory processes.

The Health Act, 2017 sets out broader principles governing the health sector, including provisions on the rights of patients and the responsibilities of health regulatory bodies, and generally requires that health policy and regulatory decisions affecting service delivery be developed with appropriate consultation. Article 43 of the Constitution guarantees the right to the highest attainable standard of health, a provision KDA specifically invoked in arguing that expanding who may perform clinical dental procedures without appropriate safeguards could undermine that right. Article 10 of the Constitution, setting out national values including public participation, and Article 47 on fair administrative action, are also relevant to KDA's argument that any change of this nature should have gone through consultation before implementation.

Kenya's broader health workforce landscape includes an established distinction between dentists, dental technologists, and community oral health officers, each with defined scopes under existing regulatory guidance. The KDA statement suggests the disputed publication would blur or extend these boundaries in ways that go beyond the currently recognised categories of oral health worker, extending authorisation into procedures ordinarily reserved for registered dental surgeons.

For KMPDC's governing council and secretariat, this dispute is a test of internal decision-making integrity. A regulator effectively accused by the profession it regulates of acting unlawfully needs to be able to show, quickly, what evidentiary and consultative basis supported the decision. KDA's demand for disclosure of expert reports, competency assessments, and consultation records puts this squarely at issue.

For private dental clinics and hospital dental departments, the dispute creates near-term planning uncertainty. Clinics considering using the disputed scope expansion to deploy lower-cost personnel for procedures previously restricted to dentists should treat that plan as high risk while the publication's validity is contested. Dental training institutions and professional bodies also face a strategic question about how to respond collectively, given that any precedent set here could affect scope-of-practice boundaries in other regulated health professions beyond dentistry.

For Compliance Teams Clinics and hospital dental departments should review current staffing to confirm no non-dentist personnel are performing procedures within the disputed scope, and should monitor KMPDC's response for any formal withdrawal or amendment.

For Risk Managers Healthcare institutions should flag liability exposure tied to any procedures performed under the disputed scope pending resolution, particularly in the event of adverse patient outcomes.

The dispute is framed by KDA as a patient safety issue, but its more consequential dimension is procedural. At stake is whether a healthcare regulator can alter the boundaries of a licensed profession through a mechanism the profession says bypassed legislative and consultative requirements. How KMPDC responds in the coming weeks, whether through withdrawal, engagement with the proposed stakeholder forum, or defence of the publication in court, will shape both the immediate outcome for dental practice in Kenya and the broader precedent for how scope-of-practice decisions are made across the health sector.