METHODS: The aim of this paper is to describe informed consent regulations for dental care in a selection of countries, focusing on children and patients with special health care needs. An online survey was shared with a convenience sample of dental professionals from 13 countries. The information was explored and the processes of consent were compared.
RESULTS: Findings suggest that there are variations in terms of informed consent for medical practice. In Tanzania, South Africa, India, Kenya, Malaysia and Brazil age is the determining factor for competence and the ability to give self-consent. In other countries, other factors are considered alongside age. For example, in Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States the principle of Gillick Competence is applied. Many countries' laws and regulations do not specify when a dentist may overrule general consent to act in the "best interest" of the patient.
CONCLUSION: It is recommended that it is clarified globally when a dentist may act in the "best interest" of the patient, and that guidance is produced to indicate what constitutes a dental emergency. The insights gathered provide insights on international practice of obtaining informed consent and to identify areas for change, to more efficient and ethical treatment for children and patients with special needs. A larger follow up study is recommended to include more or all countries.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A prospective study of 355 participants, including 280 with oral lesions/variants was conducted. Adults aged ≥18 treated at tertiary referral centres were included. Images of the oral cavity were taken using MeMoSA®. The identification of the presence of lesion/variant and referral decision made using MeMoSA® were compared to clinical oral examination, using kappa statistics for intra-rater agreement. Sensitivity, specificity, concordance and F1 score were computed. Images were reviewed by an off-site specialist and inter-rater agreement was evaluated. Images from sequential clinical visits were compared to evaluate observable changes in the lesions.
RESULTS: Kappa values comparing MeMoSA® with clinical oral examination in detecting a lesion and referral decision was 0.604 and 0.892, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity for referral decision were 94.0% and 95.5%. Concordance and F1 score were 94.9% and 93.3%, respectively. Inter-rater agreement for a referral decision was 0.825. Progression or regression of lesions were systematically documented using MeMoSA®.
CONCLUSION: Referral decisions made through MeMoSA® is highly comparable to clinical examination demonstrating it is a reliable telemedicine tool to facilitate the identification of high-risk lesions for early management.