Scholarlink

Background <p>The healthcare aspects of dentistry are framed within a legal environment. Dentists are obliged to obtain their patients’ written informed consent (IC) before undertaking any procedures. A failure to fulfill IC obligations or to fulfill such obligations correctly can have legal repercussions related to professional liability. Procedural sedation (PS) in dental patients requires an independent health treatment. This is usually successfully provided by authorized sedative drugs that induce anxiolysis and sedation, allowing the patient to tolerate uncomfortable procedures while maintaining laryngeal-pharyngeal reflexes and cardiorespiratory functions. The application of these sedative techniques implies the use of separate IC documents from those applying to the dental procedure. However, the attention of the scientific community to this issue has not yet provided unequivocal guidance.</p> Methods <p>A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, and Cochrane Library on February 10, 2025. Studies written in English, with available abstracts and full texts, investigating the use of IC in human sedative procedures in dentistry were included. No restrictions were applied regarding study design or publication period. Two independent reviewers carried out the selection process in duplicate, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer.</p> Results <p>A total of 243 studies were identified. After removing duplicates (<i>n</i> = 161), 79 articles were screened, and 35 underwent full-text review. Eight studies published between 1988 and 2023 met the inclusion criteria. These studies addressed legal considerations, ethical implications, patient comprehension, and procedural guidelines.</p> Conclusions <p>Ad hoc IC for sedation is not only a medico-legal requirement but also a safeguard of patient autonomy and confidentiality. This study reviews the scientific community’s approach to IC for PS and concludes by presenting a proposal for an ad hoc consent form based on clinical experience.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Procedural sedation in dentistry: a scoping review and proposal for an ad hoc informed consent

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月10日

查看全文
  • Angela Galeotti,
  • Alessandra Putrino,
  • Annelyse Martine Garret-Bernardin,
  • Martina Caputo,
  • Sonia Vanacore,
  • Maria Lodise,
  • Chiara Siodambro,
  • Giovanni Battista Grossi,
  • Matteo Pellegrini,
  • Gastone Zanette,
  • Ferruccio Morandi

摘要

Background

The healthcare aspects of dentistry are framed within a legal environment. Dentists are obliged to obtain their patients’ written informed consent (IC) before undertaking any procedures. A failure to fulfill IC obligations or to fulfill such obligations correctly can have legal repercussions related to professional liability. Procedural sedation (PS) in dental patients requires an independent health treatment. This is usually successfully provided by authorized sedative drugs that induce anxiolysis and sedation, allowing the patient to tolerate uncomfortable procedures while maintaining laryngeal-pharyngeal reflexes and cardiorespiratory functions. The application of these sedative techniques implies the use of separate IC documents from those applying to the dental procedure. However, the attention of the scientific community to this issue has not yet provided unequivocal guidance.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, and Cochrane Library on February 10, 2025. Studies written in English, with available abstracts and full texts, investigating the use of IC in human sedative procedures in dentistry were included. No restrictions were applied regarding study design or publication period. Two independent reviewers carried out the selection process in duplicate, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer.

Results

A total of 243 studies were identified. After removing duplicates (n = 161), 79 articles were screened, and 35 underwent full-text review. Eight studies published between 1988 and 2023 met the inclusion criteria. These studies addressed legal considerations, ethical implications, patient comprehension, and procedural guidelines.

Conclusions

Ad hoc IC for sedation is not only a medico-legal requirement but also a safeguard of patient autonomy and confidentiality. This study reviews the scientific community’s approach to IC for PS and concludes by presenting a proposal for an ad hoc consent form based on clinical experience.