186

LAWS OF MARYLAND

Ch.8

provisions are deleted as unconstitutional. See
62 Op. Att'y Gen. at 268.

The Commission to Revise the Annotated Code calls
the attention of the General Assembly to
subsection (a)(7) of this section, which, as
revised, prohibits a licensed dentist from
advertising to perform "nonroutine dental work
free or for a stated price". The Commission
believes that the constitutionality of this
provision is doubtful. However, the reported
judicial decisions on price advertising address
only "routine" services, and, consequently, the
Commission is unable to say with certainty that a
ban on advertising the price of "nonroutine"
services is unconstitutional.

The Commission to Revise the Annotated Code also
calls to the attention of the General Assembly
that, while the complete ban on advertising in
present Art. 32, § 12(a) is unconstitutional, a
prohibition of advertising on the electronic
broadcast media possibly would be
constitutionally permissible. See Bates v. State
Bar of Arizona, supra, 433 U.S. at 384.

4-503. SPECIALIZATION.

(A)  IN GENERAL.

A LICENSED DENTIST MAY NOT REPRESENT TO THE PUBLIC THAT
THE LICENSEE IS A SPECIALIST IN ANY FIELD OF SPECIALIZED
DENTAL PRACTICE UNLESS IDENTIFIED AS A SPECIALIST IN THAT
FIELD BY THE BOARD.

(B)  DETERMINATION OF QUALIFICATIONS ON REQUEST.

IF A LICENSED DENTIST REQUESTS, THE BOARD SHALL
DETERMINE WHETHER THE LICENSEE QUALIFIES FOR BOARD
IDENTIFICATION AS A SPECIALIST.

(C)  FIELDS FOR SPECIALIZED DENTAL PRACTICE.

THE FOLLOWING BRANCHES OF DENTISTRY ARE ESTABLISHED AS
SUITABLE FIELDS FOR SPECIALIZED DENTAL PRACTICE, TO BE KNOWN
AS "SPECIALTIES":

(1)  ENDODONTICS;

(2)  ORAL PATHOLOGY;

(3)  ORAL SURGERY;

(4)  ORTHODONTICS;

(5) PEDODONTICS;