The Karnataka State Dental Council (KSDC) has formally written to the Karnataka State Medical Council (KSMC), raising objections to a recent notice that prohibits Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (OMFS) from performing facial aesthetic procedures. The disputed notice, issued by KSMC on September 9, 2025, restricts OMFS specialists from carrying out such treatments. In its response, KSDC has clarified that Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery is a postgraduate specialization pursued after the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) degree, and its regulation falls under the purview of the Dental Council of India (DCI), not the medical councils. “The statutory body regulating OMFS has always been the Dental Council of India. Neither the National Medical Commission nor the Karnataka State Medical Council has any jurisdiction over the regulatory function and practice privileges of independent health professionals registered under the DCI,” the council stated in its letter. The KSDC further emphasized that the DCI’s gazetted regulations and curriculum for OMFS explicitly provide competency in performing a wide range of procedures, including those related to facial aesthetics in the craniofacial region. Along with the letter, the council enclosed copies of the DCI curriculum, syllabus, and official guidelines to reinforce its position. Calling for clarity, the KSDC has urged the KSMC to review the remit and jurisdiction of regulatory bodies in India and to respect the limitations of each council’s authority to its respective registrants. This exchange has reignited the long-standing debate over the scope of practice between dental and medical professionals, particularly in overlapping domains such as facial aesthetics and reconstructive procedures.
How to interpret a scope-of-practice dispute
Currency note: this article reports a regulatory exchange at a particular time. Notices, court orders and council positions may later change; clinicians and institutions should verify the current primary documents and applicable law before acting. Professional title alone does not authorize every procedure: training, competence, credentials, facility capability, indemnity and local regulation all matter.
| Question | Evidence to verify | Patient-safety implication |
|---|---|---|
| Is the procedure within scope? | Current statute, rules and official notices | Lawful care |
| Is the clinician competent? | Training, experience and privileges | Appropriate case selection |
| Is the setting suitable? | Equipment, team and emergency systems | Risk mitigation |
| Is consent adequate? | Material risks, alternatives and referral options | Autonomous choice |
Connect regulation with safe exodontia principles, implant ethics and Indian informed-consent practice.
Frequently asked questions
Does this article provide legal advice?
No. It is educational context; current primary law and qualified legal or regulatory advice should be consulted.
Is qualification alone sufficient?
No. Case-specific competence, credentials, infrastructure and current authorization remain relevant.
Why add a currency note?
Regulatory positions can change, and an undated interpretation can mislead clinical or institutional decisions.