Laboratory’s Matt Everatt explores what the General Dental Council’s (GDC) response to his Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request means for the world of dental technology.
In May 2025, I submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the General Dental Council (GDC) after months of silence following an earlier joint inquiry from myself and colleagues involved with Dentistry and Laboratory publications.
Back in June 2024, we wrote directly to the GDC requesting a clear and factual policy statement to clarify several important points affecting how dental technicians are regulated, and about the legal framework in which custom made dental devices should be manufactured. We asked for straightforward guidance on:
- The legal status of dental technicians
- The GDC’s approach to illegal activity in the context of fitness to practise proceeding
- The GDC’s stance on education and training of dental professionals in relation to the legal manufacturing of custom made dental devices.
No grey areas
The request was made in a format that would allow us to make a statement of fact. This was deliberate. We wanted something dental technicians could refer to with confidence. No interpretation needed. No grey areas.
Our request was shared with the Dental Technologists Association (DTA), the Dental Laboratories Association (DLA), and the Professional Standards Authority (PSA). The DLA said they had received survey results from over 350 labs, and 87% of members felt illegal manufacturing was not an issue and deemed it a low priority for the DLA.
The DTA told us they had discussed our request at a council meeting and had decided not to discuss the matter any further. I am unclear about what these organisations are saying to the GDC and what their stance is on illegal manufacture.
The PSA advised that a clear and timely response should be expected, as is consistent with the responsibilities of a transparent and public facing regulator.
We were told that the policy manager at the GDC would respond. Several follow ups were made by myself, further promises of a response were given, then replies stopped. Over a year later, no statement has been issued.
Why we filed an FOI request
Given the lack of progress, I submitted a formal FOI request asking for:
Copies of any correspondence between the GDC and the DLA, and between the GDC and the DTA, relating to our request for a policy statement and any discussion of GDC policy on dental technicians from June 2024 to the present day.
The purpose was simple. To understand what conversations have taken place about our profession and why clarity has still not been provided.
What the GDC said
On 17 July 2025, I received its formal response.
It has invoked Section 31(g) of the Freedom of Information Act. This allows public bodies to withhold information if releasing it could harm their ability to carry out their regulatory functions. Because this exemption is subject to a public interest test, the GDC has extended the deadline for its full response to 7 August 2025.
What does this mean for us?
This clearly suggests that conversations have been happening. Our profession is being discussed at a policy level. But the GDC believes releasing details of those conversations could interfere with its ability to regulate us.
That raises important questions for dental technicians:
- Why is this information so sensitive?
- Are decisions being made about us, without us?
- What is the GDC not prepared to share?
- Does it mean our registration is merely protection of title only and a waste of time?
- Will it highlight that they actually do not know how to regulate us?
If the GDC is confident in its policy position, there should be no reason to withhold a factual statement. If stakeholder input is being sought, that process should be transparent and should be in the public domain, allowing us as professionals to be part of those discussions. And if there are uncertainties around our role, training or legal status, those should be resolved openly and quickly.
Why this matters
Dental technology is a profession that is constantly evolving. We are embracing digital dentistry, CAD/CAM, 3D printing, and complex custom made work – we are not just lab support staff. We are skilled professionals contributing directly to patients’ dental health and wellbeing.
The lack of clarity from our regulator is concerning. The continued delay in publishing even a basic policy statement suggests either indecision, disagreement, or a lack of understanding of our roles within the dental team and there is a complete lack of urgency to respond. None of these serve our profession well.
What happens next?
We expect a final response by the 7 August 2025. If the information shared is incomplete or unsatisfactory, we will challenge it, and if we have to, escalate it to the Information Commissioner. We will not let this drop.
If our registration as dental technicians is to be taken seriously, we deserve clarity on how we are regulated, how those who operate outside of the legal framework are dealt with, and we deserve to be properly represented and included in any decisions that shape the future of our profession.
