Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39707378›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2024

The conflict between oral health and patient autonomy in dentistry: a scoping review.

Szilárd Dávid Kovács, Anggi Septia Irawan, Szilvia Zörgő, József Kovács

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Opinions, Attitudes and Beliefs Regarding Spirituality and Religiosity in the Clinical Practice of Dental Students: A Cross-Sectional Study.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Szilárd Dávid KovácsInstitute of Behavioural Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary. kovacs.szilard@phd.semmelweis.hu.
Anggi Septia IrawanInstitute of Behavioural Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Szilvia ZörgőMaastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
József KovácsInstitute of Behavioural Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRespect for patient autonomy, the principle that patients are capable to make informed decisions about medical interventions, is fundamental in present-day medicine. However, if a patient's request is medically not indicated, the practitioner faces an ethical dilemma represented by the conflict of the principles of patient autonomy, beneficence, and maleficence. Adjacent to topics such as medical assistance in dying and healthy limb amputation, this ethical dilemma also manifests in the care of the maxillofacial region (the oral cavity and its surroundings), an area crucial to esthetic appearance, but also to everyday functions including mastication, speech, and facial expression, all of which are related to well-being. Our aim was to explore the manifestations and resolutions of the conflict between oral health and patient autonomy in relevant literature in order to contribute to the discourse of ethical challenges concerning patient autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence.

methodsWe screened all journal articles discussing the researched ethical dilemma obtained from three databases. Two researchers developed a hierarchical coding scheme, where the parent and grandparent codes were designated deductively as: Case (situations involving the researched ethical dilemma), Judgement (decisions made in the ethical dilemma), and Principle (ideas, rules, propositions explaining the judgements); child codes were developed inductively. After coding the sources, we utilized thematic analysis to construct code constellations.

resultsMost themes identified in our sources advocated for the practitioner to choose the alternative that benefits the patient from a medical perspective, although no theme excluded the consideration of patient autonomy. Instances where respect for patient autonomy was encouraged concerned oral preventive care or when the requested intervention was expected to have an insignificant impact on oral health.

conclusionsEthical conflicts concerning patient autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence have a marked presence in oral care. These conflicts arise through the issue of body modification, evident in cosmetic dentistry and requests for tooth extraction. Our sources generally support the argumentation for beneficence, despite the rise of cosmetic procedures in dentistry.

Indexed as

BeneficenceOral HealthPersonal AutonomyDecision MakingDentistryEthics, DentalHumansInformed ConsentBeneficenceDental EthicsEstheticsOral healthPersonal AutonomyTooth extraction

Identifiers

PMID39707378
PMCPMC11662789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.