Patient and practitioner perspectives on tooth extractions without clinical justification.

Background: Nondental factors (ie, financial, psychological, or cultural considerations) can play a role in extraction requests. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether patients' perspectives on extraction without a valid clinical indication align with those of practitioners.

Methods: Dentists from 3 centers for special oral health care, oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMFS) from 3 hospitals in the Netherlands, and their patients participated in this prospective observational study.

[Cosmetic injectables in dental practice: legal aspects in the Netherlands].

A recent survey indicates 49% of this journal's subscribers endorse the administration of cosmetic injectables by properly trained dentists. Given the surging demand for cosmetic treatments, it's essential to establish clear guidelines and conventions defining the roles of the various healthcare professionals in various situations. There is, however, considerable discussion still and from a legal standpoint, the role of dentists within cosmetic medicine remains ambiguous.

How dentists and oral and maxillofacial surgeons deal with tooth extraction without a valid clinical indication.

Objectives: This study pertains to a secondary data analysis aimed at determining differences between oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMFSs) and dentists handling dental extractions without an evident clinical indication.

Study Design: A survey of 18 questions was conducted among 256 OMFSs in the Netherlands and a random sample of 800 dentists Respondents could answer the questions in writing or online. The data was collected in the period from November 2019 to January 2020, during which two reminders were sent.

Financial, psychological, or cultural reasons for extracting healthy or restorable teeth.

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine how often dental patients request extraction for nondental reasons and how dentists handle such requests.

Methods: The authors conducted a survey among 800 Dutch dentists from November 17, 2019, through January 5, 2020. The questionnaire contained 17 items, including a hypothetical case vingette.

[Consent for treatment: a results or a reasonable endeavours agreement? Two alternatives with significant practical differences to dentists].

The character of a consent for treatment is not a mere hobby for lawyers; it also has consequences in daily practicein the Netherlands, particularly if it concerns questions of who should prove what in proceedings. In general, consent agreements can be divided into an obligation to achieve results and an obligation to use reasonable endeavours. In oral healthcare, there is usually a question of an obligation to use reasonable endeavours, in which professional standards must play a leading role in the behaviour of the dentist; and here there have been a number of recent developments, such as an increase in the number of (clinical) guidelines and the acceptance of wish fulfilling medicine, under strict conditions.