HB 5399 is a broad dentistry bill that revises Connecticut law governing dental assistants, expanded function dental assistants, and the scope of dental practice. It updates definitions of direct and indirect supervision, sets training, certification, insurance, and documentation requirements for expanded function dental assistants, and clarifies which procedures dentists may delegate to dental assistants and expanded function dental assistants. The bill also specifies that certain tasks, such as x-rays, impressions, fluoride varnish, sealants, coronal polishing, and temporary restorative work, may be performed only under the supervision levels described in the act, while preserving prohibitions on diagnosis, tissue removal, prescribing, anesthesia administration, and other core dental functions.
The bill also expands the scope of dentistry by expressly allowing licensed dentists to administer cosmetic injections in a patient’s face, such as botulinum toxin or dermal fillers, and amends the statutory definition of dentistry to exclude cosmetic procedures except those related to the oral cavity, jaws, or the new cosmetic injection authority. In addition, it increases continuing education requirements for dentists by moving from ten to twelve mandatory topics beginning in 2026 and adding topics such as care for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities and identifying human trafficking victims. The bill also retains and updates infection control and controlled-substance/pain-management education requirements.
Its impact on state law is significant because it rewrites key provisions in the dental practice statutes, effective mostly October 1, 2026, with the continuing education changes effective July 1, 2026. It creates a more detailed regulatory framework for expanded function dental assistants, including credential verification, liability insurance, and limits on how many such assistants a dentist may supervise at once. It also authorizes the Department of Public Health, in consultation with the State Dental Commission, to adopt implementing regulations defining procedures, training hours, and supervision levels.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable. The bill received a 30-1 joint favorable substitute vote in the Public Health Committee and later passed the House 127-5, indicating broad bipartisan support. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, but the vote totals suggest the measure was generally viewed as a professional regulation and workforce modernization bill rather than a controversial overhaul.
The main points of contention likely center on the new authority for dentists to perform cosmetic injections and the expanded delegation of clinical tasks to dental assistants with indirect supervision in some cases. Those provisions could raise questions about patient safety, training adequacy, and the boundary between dentistry and cosmetic medicine. At the same time, the bill’s supporters appear to have favored increased flexibility for dental practices, clearer supervision rules, and expanded access to care through better use of trained assistants.
HB 5399 amends Connecticut’s dental practice statutes, especially sections 20-112a, 20-123, and 20-126c, by redefining supervision standards, expanding permissible delegation to dental assistants and expanded function dental assistants, and adding new continuing education requirements for dentists. It also creates a new statutory authorization for dentists to administer facial cosmetic injections and directs the Department of Public Health and State Dental Commission to implement the new framework through regulation.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad support. It was reported out of the Public Health Committee on a 30-1 joint favorable substitute vote and later passed the House 127-5, suggesting that most legislators viewed it positively. The vote pattern indicates consensus around modernizing dental practice rules and workforce standards, with only limited opposition.
The most likely areas of disagreement are the bill’s expansion of dentists’ authority into cosmetic injections and the broader delegation of procedures to expanded function dental assistants under direct or indirect supervision. Critics could question whether these changes sufficiently protect patients or blur professional boundaries, while supporters likely see them as practical updates that improve efficiency and access to care. The new continuing education topics may also be notable, but they appear less contentious than the scope-of-practice changes.