Provides understanding of legal issues surrounding MI dentistry.
Provides a checklist for record keeping and consent in relation to MI dentistry in general practice.
Provides guidance on the standards expected from the GDC.
Over the years there have been many conceptual changes in how dental disease is prevented and managed. What is now the norm and standard practice was at some earlier time considered to be at best pioneering, and at its worst, heresy or negligent. When we look, for example at how we conservatively manage periodontal disease when less than a generation ago we were wielding surgical knives far more frequently than we do now, we can see how research and evidence-based dentistry has influenced our thinking. We are very much at that tipping point now with minimum intervention (MI) dentistry. This article will discuss the impact of MI dentistry from a legal viewpoint, covering such aspects as consent and record-keeping.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $20.79 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Beauchamp T L and Childress J F . Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th edition. Oxford University Press, 2001.
M O. Sharif Z. Fedorowicz M. Tickle and P A. Brunton Repair or replacement of restorations: do we accept built in obsolescence or do we improve the evidence? BDJ 2010; 209: 171–174.
Hancocks S . The hole and the whole. BDJ 2013; 215: 541.
Kidd E, Fejerskov O Changing Concepts in Cariology: Forty Years On. Dent Update 2013; 40: 277–286.
Brocklehurst P, Price J . Glenny AM et al. Payment methods may influence behaviour of primary care dentists. Evid Based Dent 2015; 16: 4–5.
Suga U S, Terada R S, Ubaldini AL et al. Training and fairer payments would increase caries prevention in practice. Evid Based Dent 2014; 16: 6–7.
Department of Health. Dental Contract Reform Engagement Exercise: Detailed Findings. 2015.
General Dental Council. Standards for the Dental Team General Dental Council. Para 3.1. 3. 2013. Available at https://www.gdc-uk.org/api/files/Standards%20for%20the%20Dental%20Team.pdf (accessed July 2017)
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. 2015. UKSC 11.
White P . Consent after Montgomery: what next for healthcare professional. Clin Risk 2016; 22: 33–37.
Bright E, D'Cruz L Milne E . Consent-an update. BDJ 2017; 222: 655–657.
Birch v University College London Hospital. 2008. EWHC 2237 Cranston J.
Ryan F, Cunningham S J . Shared decision making in healthcare. Faculty Dent J 2014; 5: 124–127.
General Dental Council. Standards for the Dental Team General Dental Council. Para 3.1.4. 2013. Available at https://www.gdc-uk.org/api/files/Standards%20for%20the%20Dental%20Team.pdf (accessed July 2017)
D'Cruz L . Minimalist approach. Riskwise 2017; 15–16.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee. 1957. 1 WLR 583 (91957) 1BMLR.
Crawford v Charing Cross Hospital CA. 1953 The Times 1953.
Featherstone J D B, Doméjean S . Minimal intervention dentistry: part 1. From 'compulsive' restorative dentistry to rational therapeutic strategies. BDJ 2012; 213: 441–445.
Lallam C, Decup F . Minimal intervention dentistry II: part 2. Management of caries and periodontal risks in general dental practice. BDJ 2014; 216: 179–185.
Banerjee A, Watson T . Pickard's guide to minimally invasive operative dentistry, 10th Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
General Dental Council. Standards for the Dental Team General Dental Council. Para 7.1. 2013. Available at https://www.gdc-uk.org/api/files/Standards%20for%20the%20Dental%20Team.pdf (accessed July 2017).
About this article
Cite this article
D'Cruz, L. Dento-legal considerations about an MI approach. Br Dent J 223, 199–201 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.666
British Dental Journal (2020)
Australian Dental Journal (2019)