Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Summary Review
  • Published:

What is the best method to ensure informed consent is valid for orthodontic treatment? A trial to assess long-term recall and comprehension

Abstract

Design Single-blind randomised controlled trial.

Intervention Patient and parent pairs were randomly assigned via a random number generator to Group A or B. Both groups were given ten minutes to read a modified consent document. Group A (rehearsal) were given printouts that showed images of four core and four custom risks with handwritten descriptions of each risk and consequences. Group B were given an audio-visual presentation instead (PowerPoint). Interviews of each group were completed immediately after the informed consent and at six-month follow-up to assess recall and comprehension of information provided.

Case selection Patients aged 11-18 years old and their parents attending for comprehensive orthodontic treatment at Ohio State University graduate orthodontic clinic. All subjects needed to be able to communicate in English, have no developmental disabilities or urgent medical conditions and neither the patients or parents or subjects' siblings were to have had orthodontic treatment in the last five years.

Data analysis 1) Exploratory analysis to test for differences in demographics and anxiety between the two groups; 2) Multiple linear regression analysis was used to assess percentage of accurate responses at baseline and six months and the change between the two different groups, with differing baseline characteristics (p <0.05 was considered statistically significant); and 3) Intra- and inter-rater reliability was assessed using intra-class correlation.

Results There were no significant differences in information retention and understanding between the two methods at six-month follow-up. For both groups, recall was significantly lower six months following consent-taking. Specific domains whereby information recall and comprehension are poor include: treatment method, risks, resorption and discomfort.

Conclusions There is no superior method of consent-taking to ensure patients' and parents' information retention in the months following commencement of treatment. However, the study highlighted that current consent practices which are considered 'best practice' may be deficient.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Skulski B, Fields H W, Johnston W M, Robinson F G, Firestone A, Heinlein D J. Rehearsal's effect on recall and comprehension of orthodontic informed consent. Am J Orothod Dentofacial Orthop 2021; DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.09.026.

  2. Kang E Y, Fields H W, Kiyak A, Beck F M, Firestone A R. Informed consent recall and comprehension in orthodontics: traditional vs improved readability and processability methods. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.02.018.

  3. Carr K M, Fields Jr H W, Beck F M et al. Impact of verbal explanation and modified consent materials on orthodontic informed consent. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.043.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Ethics declarations

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carter, A., Al-Diwani, H. What is the best method to ensure informed consent is valid for orthodontic treatment? A trial to assess long-term recall and comprehension. Evid Based Dent 23, 52–53 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-022-0272-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-022-0272-9

Search

Quick links