ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Procedural sedation in dentistry: a scoping review and proposal for an ad hoc informed consent.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsA 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.
conclusionsAd 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.