The Federal Council of Dentistry (CFO) in Brazil has banned dentists from using polymethyl methacrylate, known as PMMA, for aesthetic procedures [1].
This restriction aims to protect patients from the significant health risks associated with using the substance as an aesthetic filler. By limiting its application, the council seeks to ensure that the material is only used when medically necessary for reconstruction rather than cosmetic enhancement.
The CFO published the resolution on Friday, July 24 [1]. Under the new rules, dentists are prohibited from applying PMMA for cosmetic purposes across all national territories [2]. However, the substance remains authorized for reparative treatments that are specifically provided for by Anvisa and performed by qualified professionals [2].
The move follows a pattern of increasing scrutiny regarding permanent fillers in the medical community. While the CFO allows reparative use, other regulatory bodies have taken stricter stances. The Federal Council of Medicine (CFM) previously prohibited the use of PMMA for both aesthetic and reparative purposes [3].
Medical professionals have long warned about the complications associated with PMMA, which can include chronic inflammation and difficulty in removal. The CFO's decision focuses on the specific scope of dental practice—limiting the material to cases where the functional restoration of a patient's anatomy outweighs the risks of the filler [2].
Dentists who violate this resolution may face disciplinary action from the council. The regulation ensures that any professional utilizing the material for reparative needs must be fully habilitated and adhere to the safety guidelines established by the national health surveillance agency [2].
“The Federal Council of Dentistry (CFO) in Brazil has banned dentists from using polymethyl methacrylate, known as PMMA, for aesthetic procedures.”
This regulatory shift highlights a growing divide between aesthetic and reparative medicine in Brazil. While the dental council maintains a narrow window for reconstructive use, the more restrictive stance of the Federal Council of Medicine suggests a broader medical consensus that the risks of permanent fillers like PMMA often outweigh the benefits, regardless of the intent.
