What telehealth and patient-of-record rules apply in California dentistry?

Purpose

This block covers the rules that apply when a patient is actually in front of the dentist: what counts as the dentist's lawful scope of practice, how to estimate fees, how to obtain valid consent across varying patient capacities, and how to deliver telehealth legally. It also encompasses the heavily tested regulatory mechanics of patient safety, including California's CURES system, opioid prescribing limits, strict sedation permit parameters, and license maintenance rules. The exam concentrates roughly half of the law section's items here, and the most common errors stem from candidates relying on stale preparation materials that missed the massive 2025 and 2026 legislative updates to anesthesia rules, corporate practice limits, and controlled substance tracking.

Exam Areas Covered

Task block 1C — Patient Care. Knowledge statements K1071–K1183, including scope-of-practice definitions and procedures requiring additional certification (K1071–K1072), accepting patients and protected-class accommodations (K1141–K1142), fee-estimate and billing limits (K1151–K1153), consent for minors and cognitively impaired patients (K1161–K1163), telehealth criteria, consent, and security (K1171–K1173), CURES, opioid-to-minor, and within-scope prescribing rules (K1181–K1183).

High-Yield Rules

Scope of practice and corporate control

California Business & Professions Code §1625 defines dentistry as the diagnosis or treatment, by surgery or other method, of diseases and lesions and the correction of malpositions of the human teeth, alveolar process, gums, jaws, or associated structures. Anyone practicing dentistry in California must hold a valid Dental Board license.¹ Scope is competence-limited: a dentist may not perform or hold out the ability to perform services beyond their education, training, or experience, and utilizing new technology does not expand scope by marketing alone.¹ A dentist who performs a procedure typically reserved for a specialist may be held to the specialist's standard of care, regardless of holding a general license. Some procedures require additional certification beyond a general dental license, such as sedation permits or specific continuing education for Botox and dermal-filler administration when used for dental purposes.²

Corporate control over scope is strictly limited by Senate Bill 351, which went into effect January 1, 2026. This law expands California's Corporate Practice of Dentistry (CPOD) prohibitions by explicitly forbidding private equity groups and hedge funds from interfering with a dentist's professional clinical judgment.³ Unlicensed investors and management services organizations (MSOs) may not dictate clinical schedules, billing protocols, referral choices, or clinical equipment selection, nor can they enforce non-compete or non-disparagement clauses against practitioners to silence ethical concerns.³

Memorize it: "License + Competence + Permit + Clinical-Autonomy" — the four gates of lawful scope; missing a credential or yielding clinical control to private equity disqualifies the practice.

Patient of record and the public-health exception

A "patient of record" relationship must exist before a dentist diagnoses, treatment-plans, or delivers comprehensive care. The dentist must personally examine the patient, evaluate their medical and dental history, and develop a written treatment plan.¹ Narrow exceptions exist allowing auxiliaries to perform specific tasks before the formal exam: taking emergency radiographs upon dentist direction, performing extra-oral duties, and executing mouth-mirror inspections for charting.¹

The patient-of-record requirement does not apply to dentists providing examinations on a temporary basis outside a traditional dental office setting. Health fairs, school screenings, fluoride varnish programs, and similar public-health environments are statutorily exempt from the prior-examination rule to facilitate community access to preventive care.¹

Memorize it: "Exam-Plan-or-Public-Health" — get a documented exam and plan first, unless the encounter is a public-health screening.

Accepting patients and protected classes

Civil Code §51 (the Unruh Civil Rights Act) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status.⁴ A dentist may exercise reasonable discretion in selecting patients based on clinical capacity or schedule limits but cannot refuse based on a protected characteristic; for instance, refusing to treat solely because a patient is HIV-positive violates both the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and Unruh.⁴ Title III of the ADA requires the dentist's office to provide auxiliary aids and services for patients with disabilities without passing the cost to the patient.⁴

California's Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services Act requires state agencies serving substantial numbers of non-English-speakers to provide bilingual services, and Medi-Cal dental providers face additional language-access obligations with free telephonic interpreter access.⁴ However, coverage frameworks dictate payment reality: under Assembly Bill 116, California phases out state-funded full-scope Medi-Cal dental benefits for undocumented adults aged 19 and older effective July 1, 2026, limiting that specific population to restricted-scope emergency dental coverage.⁵

Memorize it: "Unruh + ADA + Dymally" — three non-discrimination layers; California adds language access on top of federal disability access.

Fee estimates and billing within California limits

California Business & Professions Code §1683.6 requires a written treatment plan with estimated fees before non-emergency dental treatment when the estimated cost is over $300 or treatment will exceed 4 visits.^{1 6} If actual care exceeds the estimate by more than 5 percent, or whatever variance amount the plan specifies if greater, the dentist must pause and obtain the patient's renewed informed consent before continuing care.¹ Fee advertising must include material limits clearly enough to avoid bait-and-switch tactics under BPC §651.

Patient financing is not clinical consent. BPC §654.3 requires the dentist to give the written treatment plan and estimated charges to the patient before arranging third-party credit.⁶ Dentists are forbidden from hiding financing terms inside the clinical consent packet or processing a credit application before the patient has a clear understanding of the estimated dental fees.

Memorize it: "Write-300-4-5" — written estimate when care exceeds $300 or 4 visits; renewed consent if actual cost exceeds estimate by more than 5%.

Consent — competent adults

California uses a patient-centered material-risk standard originating from Cobbs v. Grant (1972): the legal test is what information a reasonable patient would consider significant in deciding whether to proceed with treatment.⁷ The core disclosure set is nonnegotiable and includes the diagnosis, recommended treatment, material risks, expected benefits, reasonable alternatives, and the likely result of no treatment.⁷ Truman v. Thomas (1980) extends this duty to informed refusal; when a patient declines recommended care, the dentist must explain the material risks of refusal rather than merely recording that the patient declined.⁸ Arato v. Avedon (1993) sets contextual limits, ensuring informed consent is a targeted disclosure of material facts rather than an endless medical data dump.⁹

Legal liability splits into two distinct lanes depending on the failure. If the dentist performs a substantially different procedure than the one consented to, it constitutes battery. If the patient consented to the procedure but the disclosure of risks was inadequate, it constitutes negligence and malpractice.⁷ A narrow emergency exception to consent applies only when immediate treatment is needed, the patient lacks capacity, a lawful surrogate is not reasonably available, and delay would materially increase the risk of serious harm.¹⁰

Memorize it: "DR. ABCN" — Diagnosis, Risks, Alternatives, Benefits, Consequences of No-treatment (the Cobbs/Truman core disclosure set).

Consent — minors

The default legal rule is that a minor's parent or guardian must provide consent for dental care. California Family Code §6920 et seq. carves several strict exceptions allowing alternate consent. Family Code §6922 allows a self-sufficient minor age 15 or older who is living separately from their parents and managing their own financial affairs to consent to medical and dental care, though the provider faces notice-to-parent obligations in many cases.¹¹ Emancipated minors may consent as adults under Family Code §7002 and §7050.¹¹

When parents are unavailable, Family Code §6550 utilizes the Caregiver's Authorization Affidavit. This allows a relative caregiver—by blood, marriage, or adoption—who completes the statutory affidavit to authorize medical and dental care for a minor.¹² A healthcare provider who relies in good faith on this affidavit is immune from civil and criminal liability, though if a parent later presents contrary wishes, the parent's legal authority immediately overrides the caregiver's consent.¹²

Memorize it: "15-Self / Emancipated / Caregiver-Affidavit" — three minor-consent lanes beyond the default parent-consent rule.

Consent — cognitively impaired adults

Adults who lack capacity require lawful surrogate consent, not simply the signature of whichever family member finds it convenient. California recognizes a strict surrogate hierarchy defined in Probate Code §§4683, 4711, and 4712.¹⁰ Being a spouse does not automatically grant ultimate medical decision-making power if a higher lawful authority is designated. Assembly Bill 2338 added a default-surrogate framework that follows specified family priorities when no advance directive or designated agent exists.¹⁰

The narrow emergency exception described for adults applies equally here. If an impaired patient requires immediate emergency treatment, no surrogate is reasonably available, and delay creates a serious risk of harm, the dentist may proceed with emergency stabilization without obtaining surrogate consent.¹⁰

Memorize it: "Recorded → Agent → Conservator → Default-Surrogate (AB 2338)" — the four lanes for adults lacking capacity.

Telehealth — California-specific rules

Telehealth alters the delivery medium but does not act as a consent shortcut. BPC §2290.5 requires telehealth-specific consent to be obtained and documented in the patient's record before services are rendered.¹³ Telehealth is also not an anonymity shortcut: BPC §1683.1 requires the patient to be able to identify the treating dentist by name, telephone number, practice address, and California license number before the virtual encounter begins.¹⁴ BPC §1683.2 strictly prohibits any provider from requiring a patient to sign away their ability to complain to the Dental Board, a protection aimed heavily at predatory telehealth intake waivers.¹⁵

For supervision, a dentist may concurrently supervise no more than 5 RDAEFs, RDHs, or RDHAPs providing telehealth-related services under BPC §1684.5(d).¹ Telehealth is rendered at the patient's physical location for licensure purposes, meaning an out-of-state dentist treating a patient physically in California must hold a California license. While California has joined the Dentist and Dental Hygienist Compact (DDHC), compact privileges are not yet active or being issued in 2026 as data system implementation takes 18 to 24 months.¹⁶ Telehealth records remain subject to standard HSC §123110 access timelines.¹⁷

Memorize it: "Consent-Identity-No-Gag-5-Tele" — telehealth consent before care, identity quartet (name/phone/address/license), no complaint waiver, max 5 telehealth-supervised auxiliaries.

Prescribing — within scope and CURES

Dentists may prescribe medication exclusively within their dental scope; writing a prescription for a non-dental condition, as a favor to a family member, or for mere convenience is a violation of the Dental Practice Act even if the paperwork is flawless.¹ The Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System (CURES) mandates a database check within 24 hours (or the previous business day) before the first time a provider prescribes, orders, administers, or furnishes a Schedule II through IV controlled substance. If the controlled substance remains part of the ongoing treatment plan, the provider must re-check CURES at least every six months.¹⁸ Schedule V drugs are reportable when dispensed, but they do not trigger the mandatory pre-prescribing CURES consultation requirement.¹⁹

CURES rules feature narrow exemptions and recent legislative carve-outs. Assembly Bill 82, effective January 1, 2026, explicitly prohibits prescribers and dispensers from reporting testosterone or mifepristone prescriptions to CURES to protect legally shielded healthcare activities.²⁰ General DCA exemptions include a 7-day nonrefillable supply for emergency department discharges or specific surgical procedures. E-prescribing is California's default under BPC §688, and holding a CURES exemption does not automatically grant an e-prescribing exemption; low-volume prescribers must formally utilize the Board of Pharmacy registration process to write paper prescriptions.^{19 21}

Memorize it: "24-6 / 7-day / II-III-IV (not V) / No-Testosterone" — check 24 hours before and 6 months after; 7-day nonrefillable emergency exemption; II-IV checked but V excluded; AB 82 exempts testosterone reporting in 2026.

Opioid counseling, naloxone, MATE Act, opioids to minors

HSC §11158.1 requires that, before issuing the first opioid prescription in a course of treatment, the prescriber must discuss addiction risk, overdose risk, and the severe danger of mixing opioids with alcohol, benzodiazepines, or other central nervous system depressants. This counseling requirement applies to all patients, not just minors.²² AB 2760 goes further, requiring prescribers to offer a naloxone prescription when prescribing 90 or more morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day, when concurrently prescribing an opioid with a benzodiazepine, or when the patient presents with an increased overdose risk.²²

For minors specifically, HSC §11159.2 requires written counseling to a minor's parent or guardian before issuing the first opioid prescription, addressing addiction risk, depressant combinations, and safe disposal options.²² Federally, dentists prescribing controlled substances must hold a valid DEA registration. The federal MATE Act requires a one-time 8-hour training on substance use disorders for DEA registration or renewal, a mandate entirely separate from California's repeating state-level opioid CE requirement.¹⁸

Memorize it: "First-talk / 90-MME-or-benzo-naloxone / MATE-once / Minors-written" — first opioid requires counseling; naloxone offer at 90 MME or with a benzo; federal MATE is 8 hours one-time; minors need written counseling.

Sedation and anesthesia

Senate Bill 1453 completely overhauled the framework for dental sedation in California, replacing outdated terminology with current strict permit names: GA (General Anesthesia), MGA (Medical General Anesthesia for physicians/surgeons providing GA in a dental office), MS (Moderate Sedation), PMS (Pediatric Moderate Sedation), and OCS-A (Oral Conscious Sedation – Adult).²³ The physical presence rule is explicit: the dentist who administers or orders deep sedation, general anesthesia, or moderate sedation must be physically present in the treatment facility the entire time the patient is sedated.²³ Informal office paperwork cannot substitute for the mandatory pediatric warning language required on consent forms under BPC §1682.²⁴

Pediatric safety requires specialized endorsements; a base MS or GA permit is not a blanket authorization to sedate children, and continuous pediatric life support credentials are required.² Nitrous oxide administered alone or minimal adult sedation (a single oral dose) does not require a Board sedation permit. However, for patients under age 13, even minimal sedation triggers the strict requirement for a PMS permit.²³ Reportable adverse events carry their own fast-tracked timeline; 16 CCR §1018.05 requires reporting convictions and sedation-related deaths or hospitalizations to the Board promptly, without waiting for the next license renewal cycle.²⁵

Memorize it: "GA-MGA-MS-PMS-OCSA / 13-PMS / Present-Permit-Pediatric" — five current permit names; under 13 needs PMS even for minimal sedation; physical presence + correct permit + pediatric endorsement when applicable.

Continuing education, auxiliaries, and license renewal

California dental licenses expire on the last day of the licensee's birth month, in even or odd years matching their birth year, with renewal conducted online via BreEZe. Excess continuing education units do not carry over to the next cycle.²⁶ Dentists must complete 50 CE units per biennial cycle, maxing out at 20 percent (10 units) for self-benefit or practice management courses. The mandatory core consists of the California Dental Practice Act (2 units every cycle), Infection Control (2 units every cycle), and a specific California opioid prescribing course (2 units every cycle, mandated under 16 CCR §1016).²⁷ This repeating state-level opioid course is distinct from the federal one-time MATE Act training.

License maintenance carries unforgiving deadlines and strict delegation rules. There is no grace period for late renewals; practicing with an expired license is a criminal offense, a $325 delinquency fee applies after 30 days, and a license not renewed within 5 years is automatically cancelled, forcing the provider to reapply as a new applicant.²⁶ Senate Bill 1453 also codified strict training timelines for dental auxiliaries: employers must ensure that unlicensed dental assistants complete a Board-approved 8-hour infection control course prior to performing any basic supportive dental procedures involving potential exposure to blood or saliva.²⁸

Memorize it: "50-2-2-2 / 5-year-cancel / 8-hr-prior" — 50 total units, 2 DPA, 2 IC, 2 CA-Opioid; 5 years until cancellation; DA needs 8-hour IC course prior to blood/saliva exposure.

Common Traps

• Treating telehealth consent as a substitute for the underlying clinical informed consent analysis.
• Letting telehealth consent happen after advice has already been given or care has started.
• Treating "the company" or "the platform" as the identifiable provider instead of the actual treating dentist.
• Letting a patient's treatment plan, financing form, or signed waiver substitute for valid informed consent.
• Treating informed refusal as merely documenting "patient declined" without detailing the risks of refusal.
• Letting a convenience-based family member sign for an impaired adult without checking for lawful surrogate authority.
• Assuming "self-sufficient minor" status without verifying the FAM §6922 statutory age and financial criteria.
• Treating Schedule V drugs like Schedule II–IV for mandatory pre-prescribing CURES consultation purposes.
• Using stale prep materials and answering with 4-month or 5-day CURES timing language instead of 24-hours/6-months.
• Confusing a CURES system exemption with an electronic prescribing exemption.
• Believing testosterone or mifepristone prescriptions are still reported to CURES after the 2026 AB 82 repeal.
• Forgetting that opioid counseling applies before the first opioid in any course of treatment for all patients, not just minors.
• Stretching dental prescribing authority to solve a non-dental problem for family or staff.
• Answering with obsolete sedation terms like "conscious sedation" instead of the current MS/PMS permit names.
• Treating a base MS or GA permit as if it automatically covers pediatric patients without the required endorsement.
• Letting the operating dentist leave the facility to go to their car or a nearby building while the patient remains sedated.
• Treating the one-time federal MATE Act training as if it replaces California's repeating 2-unit opioid CE mandate.
• Assuming an unlicensed dental assistant has a grace period to perform clinical duties before taking the 8-hour infection control course.
• Assuming a private equity firm or MSO can legally dictate clinical scheduling, billing, or non-competes under SB 351.
• Assuming the inactive or retired license status preserves the right to practice dentistry.

Scenario Implications

When the stem describes a remote-care platform missing the required identification of the treating dentist, the encounter is legally non-compliant before care even starts, regardless of whether the clinical advice provided is perfectly correct. When a patient lacks capacity and a family member offers to sign a consent form, the right answer is to identify the lawful surrogate path (recorded designation → agent under POA → conservator → default surrogate under AB 2338), and only invoke the narrow emergency exception when no surrogate is reasonably available to prevent serious harm.

When a stem describes a child brought in by a grandparent, look for the Caregiver's Authorization Affidavit. If the grandparent possesses the completed affidavit and the dentist relies on it in good faith, the dentist is immune; however, if a parent shows up later with contrary wishes, the parent's authority instantly overrides the caregiver. When the office internet or CURES system goes down, look for the narrow nonrefillable 7-day documented exception, not a blanket waiver. Furthermore, if a stem features a corporate entity or MSO instructing a dentist to alter their schedule or sign a clinical non-compete, recognize it as an illegal Corporate Practice of Dentistry violation under SB 351.

When a sedation case involves a child under 13, ask about the PMS permit (since even minimal sedation triggers this strict requirement) and the corresponding pediatric life-support credential. When the operating dentist is "in the parking lot" or "at a nearby restaurant" while a patient is moderately or deeply sedated, the answer is wrong on physical presence alone. When a stem mentions an adverse sedation event, the answer must combine clinical stabilization with the §1018.05 prompt-reporting duty to the Board, rather than waiting for the next license renewal.

Footnotes

Footnotes

1. A15 California Business & Professions Code §§1625, 1680, 1683.6, 1684.5, 1685 — definition of dentistry, unprofessional conduct, fee-estimate and re-consent rules, telehealth-supervision cap, delivery of dental care. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=1625. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹

2. A19 Dental Board of California — current anesthesia and sedation permit framework (GA, MGA, MS, PMS, OCS-A). https://www.dbc.ca.gov/licensees/dds/permits/anesthesia_permit_dentist.shtml ↩ ↩²

3. A59 Senate Bill 351 (2025) — prohibitions on private equity and hedge fund clinical interference. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB351 ↩ ↩²

4. A29 California Civil Code §51 (Unruh Civil Rights Act); Government Code §§7290–7299.8 (Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services Act); ADA Title III. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=51. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

5. A63 Assembly Bill 116 Health Omnibus — elimination of State-only Medi-Cal dental benefits for undocumented adults effective July 1, 2026. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB116 ↩

6. A28 California Business & Professions Code §654.3 — patient financing and third-party credit arrangements. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=654.3. ↩ ↩²

7. A49 Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal.3d 229 (1972) — patient-centered material-risk informed-consent standard. https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/cobbs-v-grant-30236 ↩ ↩² ↩³

8. A50 Truman v. Thomas, 27 Cal.3d 285 (1980) — duty to disclose material risks of refusing recommended treatment. https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/truman-v-thomas-30565 ↩

9. A51 Arato v. Avedon, 5 Cal.4th 1172 (1993) — limits and context for the informed-consent disclosure analysis. https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/arato-v-avedon-31521 ↩

10. A52 California Probate Code §§4683, 4711, 4712, plus AB 2338 default-surrogate framework for adults lacking capacity. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PROB&sectionNum=4683. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

11. A27 California Family Code §§6922 (self-sufficient minor), 7002/7050 (emancipated minor) — minor self-consent statutes. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=6922. ↩ ↩²

12. A57 California Family Code §6550 — Caregiver's Authorization Affidavit for relative caregivers (good-faith reliance immunity; parent contrary wishes override). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=6550. ↩ ↩²

13. A11 California Business & Professions Code §2290.5 — telehealth consent and parity. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=2290.5. ↩

14. A30 California Business & Professions Code §1683.1 — telehealth provider identification disclosures. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=1683.1. ↩

15. A31 California Business & Professions Code §1683.2 — complaint-waiver prohibition. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=1683.2. ↩

16. A62 Dentist and Dental Hygienist Compact (DDHC) — California compact integration timeline. https://ddhcompact.org/ ↩

17. A9 California Health & Safety Code §123110 — patient inspection and copy timelines (still apply to telehealth records). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=123110. ↩

18. A12 Department of Consumer Affairs CURES overview. https://www.dca.ca.gov/licensees/cures_update.shtml ↩ ↩²

19. A13 Department of Consumer Affairs CURES mandatory-consultation flyer and exemptions. https://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/cures_flyer.pdf ↩ ↩²

20. A60 Assembly Bill 82 (2025); HSC §11165(k) — CURES reporting exemptions for testosterone and mifepristone. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB82 ↩

21. A32 California Business & Professions Code §688 — electronic prescribing and exemptions. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=688. ↩

22. A24 California Health & Safety Code §11158.1 (opioid counseling), §11159.2 (counseling for minors), and AB 2760 (naloxone co-prescribing). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=11158.1. ↩ ↩² ↩³

23. A20 Dental Board of California, SB 1453 alert — anesthesia/sedation changes effective 1/1/2025 (MGA permit, pediatric endorsements, physical presence). https://www.dbc.ca.gov/formspubs/alert_sb_1453.pdf ↩ ↩² ↩³

24. A40 California Business & Professions Code §1682 — anesthesia informed consent and pediatric warning language. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=1682. ↩

25. A39 16 CCR §1018.05 — reporting convictions and other reportable events to the Board. https://www.dbc.ca.gov/about_us/lawsregs/index.shtml ↩

26. A7 Dental Board of California — continuing education, renewal, and permit-maintenance guidance. https://dbc.ca.gov/licensees/dentist_continuing_education.shtml ↩ ↩²

27. A61 16 CCR §1016 — continuing education repeating opioid course mandate. https://www.dbc.ca.gov/about_us/lawsregs/index.shtml ↩

28. A38 California Business & Professions Code §1750 — dental assistant definition, basic supportive dental procedures, and infection-control prerequisites. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=1750. ↩