The purpose of this paper is to discuss the various shortcomings of the state mandated dental screenings for school children . In this first of two parts on the discussion of mandated dental screenings , the topic will be considered in broader terms discussing the content , the politically driven sources , the effectiveness and the public health malpractice concerns of the laws . In the second part , the laws will be considered from the point of view of the state , provider and patient , giving a more individualized approach . The goal of both parts of this paper is not to discourage such programs , but encourage beneficial alternatives .
WITHOUT A STATED PURPOSE , IT BECOMES DIFFICULT FOR DENTAL PROFESSIONALS AND OTHER PROVIDERS TO GIVE THE TYPE OF CARE THAT WILL RESULT IN THE DESIRED OUTCOMES .
The State Laws
Of the 12 states that have passed dental screening laws for school children , there is variety . Both Kansas and Pennsylvania passed their screening laws in the first half of the 20 th century , but many of the other states have passed their laws within the last 10 years , creating a relatively new phenomenon of dental screening requirements . One of the most important distinctions in these laws pertains to who can conduct the screenings . In Illinois , Kansas , New York and Pennsylvania , only a licensed dentist may conduct the screening , whereas in Nebraska and Oregon , no persons are specified . Other states have lists that include a dental hygienist and can also include physicians and nurses . Another major difference is in the frequency of the dental screenings . Some states , such as California , require a screening only upon entering the first year of school . Others , such as the District of Columbia , require screenings in pre-kindergarten , kindergarten , first grade , third grade , fifth grade , seventh grade , ninth grade and eleventh grade . 2 This shows that there is considerable variation between each state .
These extensive differences show that there is a large variety from state to state . Some states , such as Iowa , have included a clearly stated purpose in their code regarding the school dental screenings . 3 On the other hand , in Rhode Island ’ s Rules and Regulations for School Health Programs , under Section 14.0 ( Dental Health Screenings ), parameters of the screenings are described in detail , while the purpose of the screenings is not . 4 Without a stated purpose , it becomes difficult for dental professionals and other providers to give the type of care that will result in the desired outcomes . One provider may believe that a screening for entry into the school system is just a visual inspection to identify children with early dental caries , while another may believe the screenings are used to identify those children who are not regularly being seen by a dentist . Clarity and an evaluation of the community ’ s needs would greatly benefit the goals of these dental screening laws , perhaps making them more effective than they currently are .
Misplaced Political Altruism
The ineffectiveness of these screenings , which will be discussed in detail later in this paper , may stem from the origins of these mandates . It has been suggested that some of these laws have passed as a result of political feelings of altruism instead of scientific basis .
The Association for State and Territorial Dental Directors has published an issue brief on the topic of dental screenings in which it states that each state law was passed after the work of a “ political champion ,” referring to a specific person or group who pushed to get the bill signed . 2 This scenario can be further exemplified by Kentucky ’ s law requiring students to have their oral health checked . The law was
2 2 J A N / F E B 2 0 1 3 | P E N N S Y LVA N I A D E N TA L J O U R N A L