{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01342882721575649, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.3522727272727275, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Whiter Shade of Grey: Comparisons of the Legal and Professional Status of Tooth Whitening in Three Jurisdictions.

This article seeks to examine and compare the legal and professional positions of tooth whitening of three jurisdictions: the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. Within each jurisdiction, a differing formula of legislation, case law and professional guidance dictates how tooth whitening is regulated and practised. Tooth whitening still holds curiosity as a procedure with regards to whether it does indeed warrant status as a professional activity and whether its practice should be limited to dental professionals. Through exploration of the differing positions of three different jurisdictions, it is possible to demonstrate that this issue is far greater than the common view within the profession that for reasons of public protection, access to tooth whitening should be controlled by the dental profession. The monopoly upon tooth whitening procedures that the dental profession often celebrates, where it exists, should be viewed to be fragile and not taken as an unending status quo.