HOF Legal Dispute: Rulings and How to Follow Them

Few areas of healthcare live through a regulatory dispute as intense as orofacial harmonization. Councils of different professions have issued rules on aesthetic procedures, and medical bodies have challenged several of them in court. In August 2026, a ruling by the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region (TRF1), in Brazil, on the resolution that created the HOF specialty in dentistry put the topic into searches and practice-room conversations.

This page summarizes the rulings with case numbers and official sources, explains what is known about their effects and shows how to follow them. Status checked on October 20, 2026. Court decisions change with appeals: before any professional decision, check the official sources and consult your professional council. This page is not legal advice and does not state what each profession may or may not do.

What was at issue?

Resolution CFO-198/2019, dated January 29, 2019, recognized orofacial harmonization as a dental specialty and defined its field of practice and the parameters for specialization courses. Medical bodies challenged the rule in a public civil action in the Federal Court of the Federal District, arguing that it expanded dentists' scope to aesthetic procedures across the whole face, beyond what the law allows.

At the first-instance level, the medical bodies' request was rejected, according to press coverage. The bodies appealed to the TRF1.

What did the TRF1 decide in August 2026?

The CFM's news item on the decision, dated August 20, 2026, records that body's understanding; it is a party to the case. The CFO issued a statement the same day saying it disagrees with the decision, will take the appropriate legal measures and that, at that moment, there was no change in dentists' scope of practice. The CFO maintains that HOF is part of dentistry under Law no. 5,081/1966, which regulates the practice of the profession.

What changes and what does not yet?

Given the parties' opposing interpretations, the safest stance is impeccable documentation: a complete patient record, a specific informed consent and practice within what your council formally advises. Steps to reduce the risk of litigation are in lawsuits over harmonization: how to prevent them.

What about the CFO's 2026 resolutions?

Before the judgment, the CFO issued new rules that also enter the conversation:

• Resolution CFO-SEC-284, dated March 19, 2026. Recognizes that the dentist's anatomical field of practice covers the head and neck region, prohibits treatment of malignant neoplasms and revokes CFO Resolution no. 176/2016.
• Resolution CFO-SEC-286, dated March 20, 2026. Recognizes Orofacial Aesthetic Surgery (CEOF) as a dental specialty and defines its field of practice, competencies and training parameters.

According to legal coverage, these resolutions were not the subject of the August 2026 judgment. That does not mean they are immune to challenge: council rules can be taken to court at any time. HOF regulation at the CFO is detailed in HOF regulation at the CFO and the specialty's history in HOF as a dental specialty.

Which other cases involve aesthetics and councils?

The dispute did not begin with HOF in dentistry. The same argument, that councils cannot expand by resolution the duties defined by law, has appeared in cases on other professions:

The news items cited come from the CFM, which is a party to these cases. For each profession, the current situation and the rules in force should be checked with the council itself. There are specific pages on harmonization in biomedicine (CFBM), aesthetic pharmacy (CFF), aesthetics in nursing (COFEN) and facial harmonization and the CFM.

In the background of all of them is Law no. 12,842/2013, known as the Medical Act Law, cited by the medical bodies, and the laws of each profession, cited by the other councils.

How can I follow the case?

1. Look up the case by number. On the TRF1 portal, use the case search with number 1003948-83.2019.4.01.3400. Electronic cases may be in PJe, with public search.
2. Read the judgment when it is published. It is the document that defines what was decided. News items and posts summarize, sometimes with bias.
3. Follow your council. CFO, CFM, CFBM, CFF and COFEN publish official statements on their sites. The CRO or the regional council in your state also provides guidance.
4. Be wary of screenshots and chain messages. In decision weeks, interpretations circulate from all sides. The source is the case and the official statement.
5. Note the date. When making any professional decision based on the legal situation, record the date and the source you consulted.

How should I answer a patient who asks?

Patients who saw the news may ask whether the procedure "can still" be done. The answer should be honest, short and not attack other professions.

In your marketing, avoid commenting on the decision in a way that looks like advertising against other professions, and follow your council's advertising rules. See what you may advertise under CFO and CONAR rules.

And in Harmy?

Checklist for following the legal dispute

1. Case number noted: 1003948-83.2019.4.01.3400.
2. Judgment read when published, from the official source.
3. Statements from your federal and regional council followed.
4. Date and source of each check recorded.
5. Team instructed to answer patients based on official guidance.
6. Complete clinical documentation at every appointment.
7. Marketing reviewed against your council's rules.