What does the Dentists Act say about orthodontic treatment choice?

Should one theory of dentistry be allowed to predominate over another in a profession that has a monopoly? This question is traced to the original Dentists Act of 1878, which was set up as a result of the dental reform movement which sought to prevent unqualified dentists from practising. A report into the 'extent and gravity of the evils connected with the practice of dentistry and dental surgery by persons not qualified under the Dentists Act' published in 1919 showed that the original Act had been unsuccessful in this respect, which led to the 1921 Act. The 1919 Report and the current Dentists Act of 1981 both refer to and support this contention. Can a licensed monopoly be justified in excluding the practice of expansion in non-extraction functional jaw orthopaedics while accepting conventional extraction orthodontics? This is especially so, as there is an expanding evidence base to support expansion in functional jaw orthopaedics.