Subcommittee backs measure to let certified dental assistants perform limited scaling amid fierce opposition from hygienists and specialists

A Virginia House subcommittee voted to report House Bill 970, a substitute creating a certified preventive dental assistant (PDA) role that would permit trained dental assistants, under defined supervision and safeguards, to perform limited supragingival scaling and polishing.

The bill’s sponsor said the measure is intended to create a career ladder and reduce months‑long waits for routine preventive care. "This bill would allow dental assistants with 1,800 hours or more of clinical experience to obtain certification to assist with basic functions during dental hygiene appointments," the sponsor said, noting safeguards including supervised case counts and limits on how many assistants a dentist may supervise for these tasks.

Supporters included the Virginia Dental Association, large practice networks and free clinics. Scott Johnson (Virginia Dental Association) pointed to pilot programs and military training examples, saying Missouri’s pilot reported no adverse safety events in an 8‑month study and that practices saw high patient satisfaction where assistants provided preventive care.

Opponents — including the Virginia Dental Hygienists Association, dental‑hygiene educators, board members and specialty dentists — warned that dental school curricula and hygiene curricula are different and that short, practice‑based training risks incomplete care. Barrett Hardeman of the VDHA cited analysis saying the Missouri pilot did not demonstrate improved access for more serious periodontal care; Dags Zapatero and other clinicians warned about missed pathology and inconsistent training.

National hygienist leadership also testified in opposition. Lynette Vanengilder, president of the American Dental Hygienists Association, told the committee the bill ‘‘jeopardizes the health and safety of the public’’ and said standardized education and licensure protect patient care.

After extended oral testimony, the committee reported the substitute by a recorded vote of 9–0. The recommendation advances the bill for further consideration; opponents signaled plans to continue their challenge in later stages of the legislative process.

The vote does not enact the policy; it forwards the substitute for additional committee and floor review.