Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into dentistry has potential to improve diagnostic accuracy and enable more personalized treatment planning. However, the practical and legal aspects of obtaining informed consent in this context remain unresolved.

Objectives

The present article aimed to unify current positions found in the ethics literature with current legal standards in order to develop clinically applicable decision flowchart and checklist for patient consent in AI-assisted dentistry.

Methods

A qualitative thematic synthesis of 50 publications addressing AI, ethics, and informed consent in dentistry was conducted using Braun and Clarke's six-phase framework. Insights were translated into a structured consent checklist and a decision-making flowchart, which were then evaluated through a pilot survey of practicing dentists in Serbia who use AI tools.

Results

Twelve dentists completed the survey. Most rated the checklist and flowchart as clear, practical, and feasible for clinical application. Over 90% agreed that standardized consent improves patient communication and trust when AI is explained as being under clinician supervision.

Conclusions

The proposed consent checklist and flowchart provide a clinically applicable framework that strengthens patient autonomy, supports ethical and transparent AI use in dentistry, and offers guidance for practitioners navigating emerging regulatory requirements.

Keywords

Artificial intelligence dentistry ethics patient consent liability transparency

Introduction

Artificial intelligence (AI) refers to computer-based systems that perform tasks typically requiring human cognition, such as pattern recognition or decision-making. In the context of dentistry, we use the term “AI tool” to describe various applications, including algorithms, software, or systems designed to support clinical decision-making.^1,2 The integration of AI tools into dentistry has enhanced diagnostic accuracy and personalized treatment planning, with a focus put on patient-centered AI-enhanced dental care, which emphasizes the patient's overall experience and their active involvement in the treatment decisions.¹ While some AI tools are commercially available, and approved by regulatory bodies, such as VideaHealth's, which has been shown in clinical trials to be superior to dentist in detection of caries, Overjet's Dental Assist, which automatically measure bone loss in radiographs, thereby speeding the time necessary to begin periodontal disease treatment, or Pearl's Second Opinion solution, which helps dentist to spot conditions like cavities, tartar and inflammation, other AI tools are still in the research phase.^2–5 As dental professionals adopt AI tools in the practice and research, it is imperative to address the ethical and legal considerations surrounding AI-enhanced dentistry. The currently two major legal and ethical frameworks, EU AI Act⁶ and The Right to Notice and Explanation of AI Systems Used in Health Care⁷ aim to govern the use of AI systems in the healthcare, with the EU AI Act providing legal safeguards and the Right to Notice and Explanation ensuring ethical transparency for patients. One should distinguish between regulatory frameworks—binding legal instruments such as the EU AI Act, which applies across EU member states—and ethical guidelines, such as the Right to Notice and Explanation of AI Systems Used in Health Care, which represents a bioethical standard without formal legal force but with strong influence on practice and debate. The sensitive issue of informed consent represents one of the most challenging issues regarding AI use in practice and research, yet the consensus surrounding this issue is lacking.⁸ The aims of this study were: first, to identify key ethical principles, dilemmas, and regulatory gaps related to AI use in dentistry through thematic synthesis of the literature; and second, to translate these insights into a legally supported and clinically applicable informed consent checklist and decision-making flowchart, whose practical relevance was then evaluated through feedback from practicing dentists.

Method

Thematic analysis

This study employed a qualitative research design using thematic synthesis, to explore the ethical and legal dimensions of informed consent in the application of AI within dental practice. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using the following electronic databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and covered publications from January 2016 to January 2025. Search terms were designed to capture studies relevant to the intersection of AI, ethics, and informed consent in dentistry. The following search terms were applied: (“artificial intelligence” OR “AI”) AND (“dentistry” OR “dental”) AND (“ethics” OR “consent” OR “informed consent” OR “legal”). Articles were included if they discussed ethical, legal, or consent-related issues in the application of AI to dentistry. Exclusion criteria were: not in English, not related to dentistry, not addressing consent or ethical/legal issues, or technical/engineering focus only. To ensure credibility, the author and an assistant independently screened titles and abstracts, and disagreements were resolved through discussion. Full-texts were reviewed against the inclusion criteria, and final decisions were documented systematically. Peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, and official legal documents regarding patient-centered legal and ethical aspects of AI in dentistry and studies explicitly discussing the informed consent process within the context of AI use were included. Credibility and transparency were ensured by employing predefined eligibility criteria, dual independent screening, and transparent reporting of the selection process. Data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke's six-phase framework.⁹ Text segments from the included publications were manually coded by the first author and cross-checked by an assistant. Differences in coding were discussed until thematic consensus was achieved. No qualitative data management software was used, due to the limited dataset size. After Braun and Clarke's six-phase thematic analysis, which included familiarization with data, coding, theme generation, review, definition, and final synthesis,⁹ findings were translated into a structured, dentistry-specific informed consent checklist, and decision-making flowchart—to help dentists determine whether explicit informed consent is required for a given AI application.

Empirical assessment

An online self-administered, 14-item questionnaire in Serbian, consisting of closed-ended questions, was designed to explore dentists’ perceptions and opinions of the proposed checklist and decision flowchart. The questionnaire was developed de novo, based on themes identified in the literature synthesis and aligned with regulatory and ethical requirements for AI use in dentistry and it took approximately 10 min to complete survey. Items were designed to assess clarity, practicality, and feasibility of the proposed checklist and flowchart. A three-point Likert-type scale was used to collect clear and straightforward responses in a forced-choice format. This simplified scale (“agree,” “neutral,” “disagree”) was selected to encourage unambiguous responses and reduce bias in a pilot study with a small sample size. The initial draft was reviewed by two colleagues, to ensure face validity and linguistic clarity. Minor modifications were made to improve readability before distribution. Participation invitations were distributed via email to experienced dentists which use AI tools in private practices (purposive sampling), and participants were informed about research aims and investigator role. The study on the use of AI in dentistry received ethical approval from the Ethical Committee of the School of Dental Medicine (approval no. 36/7). The survey was administered by the author (JR), which holds a PhD in Medicine and MSc in Bioethics, at the time of study employed as university professor. No prior relationship was established with participants, who were only informed of the study's aims and procedures, while researcher's characteristics such as professional background and interest in AI ethics were disclosed to ensure transparency. As this was a pilot feasibility survey, no a priori sample size calculation was conducted. The survey was designed to provide preliminary insights into the clarity, practicality, and feasibility of the proposed checklist and flowchart rather than to achieve statistical generalizability. Data saturation was not applicable to the survey component, which employed closed-ended items, but was considered in the thematic synthesis of literature used to construct the framework.

Results

Overview of included literature

From 252 records identified, after duplicate removal and abstracts screened, 67 documents were assessed for eligibility. Of the 67 full-text articles reviewed, 17 were excluded due to insufficient detail on informed consent, lack of relevance to dentistry, or methodological inconsistency. The final 50 were subjected to thematic synthesis (Figure 1). These comprised 45 peer-reviewed journal articles, four legal or regulatory documents, and one book chapter. Namely, data extraction focused on identifying ethical challenges, regulatory frameworks (e.g. EU AI Act), and proposed strategies for informed consent in AI-enhanced dentistry. Extracted data were analyzed qualitatively to identify key themes and patterns (Table 1).

Figure 1.

Flow diagram of literature search and selection.

Table 1.

The ethical questions associated with patient consent in AI-enhanced dentistry.

	Questions	Brief summary	References
1.	When is consent needed for dental AI?	AI-assisted dental imaging doesn't require consent, but patient notification is ethical.	^6–8 ^{,12,16–21,50,51}
2.	What are the challenges to patient's understanding?	Obtaining informed consent for AI in dentistry is challenging due to comprehension, bias, and data limitations.	¹⁴ ^20–27 ^,45–48
3.	What is the dentist's role in AI-supported decisions?	By EU AI Act, clinicians are required to maintain oversight over AI recommendations, making the dentist's judgment central to the informed consent process	^6–8 ^,10,17–21
4.	How AI decisions and data use are regulated?	Patients must be informed about AI use, data processing, liability issues, and accountability in dentistry.	^{7,12,18,19,24,27}

Thematic findings

A qualitative thematic synthesis was conducted following Braun and Clarke's six-phase framework, which is widely used for identifying patterns across literature. This method was selected due to its flexibility in analyzing diverse ethical, legal, and regulatory texts and its suitability for synthesizing complex issues where empirical consensus is lacking.⁹ The process involved analysis of 50 selected publications: initial coding of relevant text segments, generation of candidate themes, refinement and naming of themes, and final synthesis. Thematic analysis was applied to data extracted from peer-reviewed literature and legal/regulatory documents related to AI ethics and informed consent in dentistry. Four key questions/themes were identified: (1)When is consent needed for dental AI?/ the uncertainty around when explicit patient consent is required, (2) What are the challenges to patient's understanding?/the difficulties around patient understanding of AI's role, (3) What is the dentist's role in AI-supported decisions?/ the importance of clinician oversight in maintaining trust, and (4) How AI decisions and data use are regulated?/the legal obligations related to automated decision-making and data use. These themes were critically compared and interpreted to inform a practical framework for consent in AI-enhanced dental care (Table 1).

Consent checklist and flowchart

Following the thematic synthesis of selected articles, key findings were converted into usable guidelines for everyday dental practice. A structured, dentistry-specific informed consent checklist (Table 2) was created to address recurring ethical concerns and communication gaps revealed in the literature such as patient understanding, clinician oversight, and legal obligations. This checklist provides clear recommendations for dental professionals to ensure they transparently communicate the role, function, and implications of AI tools used in diagnosis or treatment planning. In order to complement the checklist, a decision-making flowchart (Figure 2) was constructed to support dentists in evaluating whether explicit informed consent is required for AI tool which should be used. The flowchart categorizes AI tools based on their clinical function (e.g. supportive vs autonomous) and data use (e.g. dental care vs research/or algorithm training), aligning with current regulatory standards such as the GDPR¹⁰ and EU AI Act.⁶ These tools are designed to improve consistency in informed consent practices, translating ethical and legal principles into feasible actions in routine dental practice.

Figure 2.

Decision flowchart for patient informed consent in AI-assisted dentistry.

Table 2.

Patient consent checklist in AI-enhanced dentistry.

Element of patient consent	Checklist for dentists	Specific Al-related questions by patients	Dentist’s answers
Purpose of the AI use	Explaining the purpose of AI tool in predicting the success of, e.g. endodontic or orthodontic treatment.	What is the purpose of AI tool being used for in my root canal/orthodontic treatment?	The AI tool is used to predict how likely the root canal treatment/orthognathic surgery or tooth extraction will be successful/suitable based on radiographs and your (patient's) medical data.
Benefits, risks and limitations	Detail the benefits and potential risks/potential errors of using AI in predicting dental treatment success.	What are the benefits and what are the risks of relying on AI for predicting the success of my dental treatment?	The AI tool can give a more personalized prediction, which helps to plan your treatment better, but there is a risk of AI not being always accurate, since it provides an estimations based on data from similar cases. Therefore, the dentist will make a final decision.
AI system transparency	Disclose who developed the AI system, how the AI arrives at its conclusions.	Who developed the AI system, how does it work and is it approved by medical authorities?	The AI system is developed by a certified medical technology company and is approved for use in dental diagnostics. It uses a large database of past cases and your specific medical and dental data to predict the likelihood of success.
Liability	Clarify that AI is a tool, not a replacement for dentist’ professional judgment.	Will a dentist review the AI's predictions before making decisions?	Yes, the AI is just one tool to assist dentist in the decision-making process.
Data use and privacy and consent for future AI use	Inform the patient how their data, including dental records, will be used and stored by the AI system.	How will my dental data be protected when used by the AI now or in the future?-Will my personal information be shared with others?	Your dental data will be securely stored and used only for the purpose of treatment planning (or research). Strict privacy policy is used and none of your personal data could be shared without your consent, neither now nor in any future treatments.
Alternatives	Provide alternative options if the patient does not want AI involved in their care.	Can I refuse the use of AI for my dental treatment?	Yes, you can. Then traditional methods, like clinical judgment will be solely used.
Patient rights and consent	Ensure the patient understands they can ask questions and withdraw consent at any time.	Can I change my mind and withdraw my consent for AI use later?	Yes, you can withdraw your consent for AI use at any time during the procedure.

Practicing dentists’ assessments on proposed consent checklist and flowchart

While invitations were sent to 30 e-mail addresses of Belgrade private dental offices, only 12 dentists responded, and answered the survey, nine women and three men, most respondents (58.3%) were aged 30–45 years; 16.7% were under 30 and 25.0% were over 45 years old and 11 of them had more than 10 years of working experience. Survey comprised of three parts: (1) checklist assessment; (2) flowchart assessment; (3) communication with patient. Based on the results presented in Table 3, the majority of dentists found both proposed checklist and flowchart highly acceptable and practical. Specifically, 83.3% of dentists agreed that the checklist is understandable, while 91.7% stated they would consider incorporating it into everyday dental practice. Moreover, 66.7% found the checklist feasible for daily practice, and the same percentage indicated that the flowchart aids in determining when explicit consent is required. Importantly, 91.7% agreed that standardized consent would improve communication, and an equal percentage noted patients feel reassured when AI is explained as being under clinician supervision. These findings affirm the checklist and diagram as supportive tools for enhancing patient autonomy and ethical practice in AI-assisted dentistry.

Table 3.

Practicing dentists’ assessments of consent checklist and flowchart.

Question—Opinions	Answer—Always/Agree	Answer—Sometimes/Neutral	Answer—Never/Disagree
Do you obtain specific consent from the patient when using an artificial intelligence tool?	16.7%	75.0%	8.3%
The content of the checklist is clear and understandable.	83.3%	16.7%	0%
The checklist covers all ethically important information that should be shared with the patient.	66.7%	33.3%	0%
The checklist is feasible for use in everyday dental practice.	66.7%	33.3%	0%
I would consider incorporating this checklist into my routine communication with patients.	91.7%	8.3%	0%
The diagram helps me decide when explicit patient consent is required for the use of an AI system.	66.7%	33.3%	0%
The diagram reflects real situations in private dental practice.	41.7%	58.3%	0%
The checklist and diagram support patient autonomy.	83.3%	16.7%	0%
A standardized approach to informing patients about AI systems would improve communication among dentists.	91.7%	8.3%	0%
Patients feel better when I explain that AI is used by the clinician under their supervision.	91.7%	8.3%	0%
Informed consent should focus more on the clinician's interpretation than on the technical details of the AI system.	75.0%	25.0%	0%

Discussion

Presently proposed informed consent checklist and decision-making flowchart, to our knowledge, represent first attempt to guide dentist through informed consent process during AI use in dentistry, and, based on survey results, highly graded by practicing dentists which use AI tools. Previous studies have emphasized ethical principles and regulatory challenges^2,11,12 but have not offered structured, clinically applicable tool tailored to dental practice. Failure to comply with emerging AI regulations may expose dentists and institutions to legal liability, including claims of negligence or breaches of data protection law.^6,8 In particular, lack of explicit consent for AI-assisted decisions could be interpreted as a violation of patient rights under GDPR or the EU AI Act.^6,10 The proposed checklist and flowchart serve as practical safeguards by standardizing consent procedures, thereby reducing legal risk while strengthening transparency and patient trust. The fact that only 12 dentists responded may be explained by the still limited adoption of AI tools in local dental practice, lack of confidence among practitioners unfamiliar with AI, and common barriers such as workload or lack of incentives. Additionally, the sensitivity of ethical and legal questions surrounding AI might have discouraged some dentists from participation as has been shown recently.¹³ Namely, an international cross-sectional survey among dentists, showed that 70% of dentists endorsed obtaining written patient consent before medical interventions (25% disagreed, 5.7% were uncertain), while additional concerns were raised about AI's potential to influence clinical judgment, the need for transparency in algorithms, and the safeguarding of patient information.¹³ Furthermore, it seems that factors related to sex, age, physical activity, and ethnicity play into preference for consent communication.¹⁴ Noteworthy, presently developed clinically applicable tools were estimated as understandable, feasible, and supportive of both ethical practice and improved communication, with over 90% of responding dentists agreeing that standardized consent enhances patient trust when AI use is properly explained. Having in mind that recent study revealed that only about 10% of surveyed Serbian dentists were currently using or familiar with AI applications in dentistry,¹⁵ it was challenging to identify and recruit participants who actively use these tools in practice. This limited adoption may be partly explained by a scepticism toward AI use among dentists shown in the same study, closely linked to a lack of both basic and continuing education on the topic, concern that AI might replace dental professionals, and anxiety related to the absence of clear regulatory policies and guidelines.¹⁵ Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a checklist and decision-making flowchart to address existing ethical gaps and as guidelines support dentists in responsibly integrating AI into everyday clinical practice.

As most regulatory-approved dental AI tools assist in image interpretation rather than making autonomous decisions,⁵ their use generally falls under implied consent as part of routine clinical care.^8,16,17 Namely, implied consent is consent assumed from a patient's actions in routine care, for example when a patient sits for a radiograph. Explicit consent, by contrast, is a clear oral or written agreement given after the patient receives full information about the procedure, risks, and alternatives, as required by GDPR Articles 13–15 and 22 for AI systems that process health data or make autonomous recommendations.^10,16,17 Dentists already use digital imaging tools without separate consent, and AI is viewed as an extension of these technologies.¹⁶ However, when AI tools function autonomously or process data such as in treatment recommendations, algorithm training, or third-party sharing, explicit consent is required under GDPR Articles 13–15 (which require patients to be informed about data processing and its purpose) and 22 (which restricts fully automated decision-making without explicit consent) as well as in line with recommendations from WHO and FDI World Dental Federation.^10,18,19 Ethical literature supports this distinction, stressing transparency and informed consent especially for autonomous systems.^6–8^,16,17,20,21 Therefore, while AI-supported radiographic interpretation may not demand explicit consent, ethical practice supports patient notification about AI use and obligatory dentist oversight.

The main problem when obtaining informed consent for using AI lies in the lack of a certainty that the patient fully understands the technology, its risks and benefits, and can make an informed, voluntary decision.²⁰ There is also a question what kind of information is sufficient and optimal to achieve patient comprehension, necessary for the informed decision.^14,22 The risk of consent without comprehension was noted as an ethical vulnerability,²³ particularly in procedures involving irreversible decisions in dentistry, such as teeth extractions or prosthodontic interventions.

The process of informed consent for AI deployment or research can involve complex theoretical concepts and terminology, not even well comprehended by dentists or medical doctors, and that may overwhelm or confuse patients.^24,25 On the other side, patients often have limited knowledge of AI technology, particularly in how it is applied in dental care, and when patients do not fully understand the information, they might feel more anxious about the proposed procedure.²⁶ Therefore, some authors suggest that explanation should be limited to only a broad generic explanation of how the AI tool operates.²¹ One such example could be like this: “The AI tool is based on a huge number of data, like thousands of books, and then AI found a pattern between patient data, symptoms, dental treatment he/she receives and treatment success. Thus, when AI tool looks at your health data, like your symptoms or anatomic details on your radiographs, it compares it with the patterns it has learned and based on it, predict will the dental treatment be optimal for you.”

By current regulations, such as the EU AI Act, clinicians are required to maintain oversight over AI recommendations, making the dentist's judgment central to the informed consent process.²⁷ Thus, patients should perceive AI tools as a “second opinion” which dentist critically assess and adapt AI suggestions to individual needs. In such circumstances, patient-doctor trust is reinforced and understanding improved.²⁷ This supports a model of balanced transparency which aims to focus not on how AI reaches its conclusions, but on why the clinician recommends a specific treatment. Thus, the emphasis should move from explaining how an AI tool generates its recommendations, which often challenges the feasibility of informed consent, to clarifying how the clinician interprets those suggestions, and makes the final decision (EU AI Act argues for obligatory human oversight). Since doctors are responsible for evaluation of AI recommendations and provide the final judgment, their reasoning becomes the central element to communicate to patients, much like in traditional informed consent. When patients see that the clinician values AI input but verifies and tailors it to their individual needs, they tend to perceive AI as enhancing—not replacing—the dentist's expertise. This balanced approach can foster trust and optimism by combining advanced technology with professional judgment.

The primary goal of AI in dentistry is to enhance diagnostic accuracy and treatment outcomes, particularly in areas prone to subjective interpretation.^15,28 AI systems have shown high efficacy in detecting caries, periodontal disease, oral cancer, vertical root fractures, and periapical lesions.^29–35 They also support orthodontic treatment planning, pulp diagnosis, and individualized care recommendations.^36–44 Still, limitations in dental data quality, diversity, and standardization can introduce algorithmic bias, especially for underrepresented patient groups.^45–47 Furthermore, cognitive biases from human-AI interaction—such as altered expectations based on system familiarity—must be considered when evaluating AI's impact in practice.⁴⁸

Under the GDPR, AI tools that process personal health data must meet standards of transparency, fairness, and data minimization. Patients should be informed about what data are collected, how they are processed, the logic of any automated decisions, and who will access the data and for how long.¹⁰ Although digital health systems have long posed privacy risks, AI amplifies these concerns, highlighting the ongoing need to strengthen data security in clinical practice.⁴⁹ In dentistry, AI tools used for image interpretation generally carry low risk, as dentists retain full responsibility for treatment decisions and use AI as a supportive tool.^12,50,51 However, questions of liability remain unresolved when adverse outcomes arise. According to WHO and FDI guidance, assigning responsibility is difficult due to the shared roles among clinicians, AI system developers, and approving institutions^18–19^,24 dentists may be liable if they misuse AI tools, fail to review recommendations, or apply unapproved systems. Conversely, regulatory bodies and developers could be accountable for harm caused by poor design, inadequate approval processes, or lack of training. Even when fault is unclear, patients should be eligible for compensation. To address these concerns and improve practice, a structured consent checklist is presently proposed to guide dentists in discussing AI-supported treatment predictions and addressing patient concerns.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, no formal sample size calculation was performed for the pilot survey, and data saturation was not applicable to its closed-ended design. The number of dentists who responded to survey was limited to 12, and all respondents were recruited from Serbian dental clinics, which introduces a potential sampling bias and limits the generalizability of the findings to other cultural and regulatory contexts. Second, while the informed consent checklist was developed through a synthesis of international ethical and legal frameworks and informed by expert discussion during manuscript preparation, it has not yet undergone formal external validation by independent expert panels or tested across diverse international cohorts. Consequently, present findings should be interpreted as preliminary and exploratory and future research should focus on validating the checklist content and evaluating its applicability in cross-cultural settings.

Conclusions

The implementation of informed consent in AI-assisted dentistry can vary significantly depending on cultural norms, legal frameworks, and regulatory requirements. These differences influence how practitioners approach transparency, communication, and ethical obligations when using AI in patient care. The proposed consent checklist and flowchart provide a clinically applicable framework that strengthens patient autonomy, supports ethical and transparent AI use in dentistry, and offers guidance for practitioners navigating emerging regulatory requirements.

The rapid progress of AI tools suggests that in the near future it may not be possible to offer non-AI-enhanced medical or dental practice nor to avoid use of autonomous robots, and probably that would impose different ethical standards in the patient care. For now, patients should be provided with all necessary information about AI tool used in dental treatment prediction or recommendation, and respect their right to consent or decline the use of AI in their care.

Best practice

In AI-assisted dentistry the focus should be put on translating ethical principles into actionable protocols aligned with evolving regulations. For dentists, the proposed checklist and consent flowchart can guide decisions on when explicit consent is required, while patient discussions should emphasize the clinician's reasoning rather than technical details of algorithms. The educators should integrate AI consent training into curricula through case-based discussions and simulations, ensuring that students develop both ethical awareness and communication skills. The AI developers should be encouraged to design transparent and comprehensible systems that preserve privacy protection, and the central role of human oversight. The Ethics committees should periodically review AI-informed consent procedures to ensure alignment with legal frameworks and provide structured feedback to clinicians and developers. Finally, the regulators should work toward harmonizing international consent requirements and monitoring compliance to safeguard transparency, privacy, and patient autonomy.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Dr Milena Barać for assistance.

ORCID iD

Jelena Roganović

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethical Committee of the School of Dental Medicine, number 36/7.

Author contribution

J.R.: conceptualization, methodology, analyses, review.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Roganović

Radenković

. Ethical use of AI in dentistry. In: Radenković

(ed.) Ethics – Scientific Research, Ethical Issues, Artificial Intelligence and Education. London: IntechOpen, 2023, pp. 83–94.

Surlari

Budală

Lupu

, et al. Current progress and challenges of using artificial intelligence in clinical dentistry: a narrative review. J Clin Med 2023; 12: 7378.

Liu

Zhang

Shan

. Application of artificial intelligence in orthodontics: current state and future perspectives. Healthcare (Basel) 2023; 11: 2760.

Turosz

Chęcińska

Chęciński

, et al. Oral health status and treatment needs based on artificial intelligence dental panoramic radiograph (DPR) analysis: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Med 2024; 13: 3686.

Daneshjou

, et al. How medical AI devices are evaluated: limitations and recommendations from an analysis of FDA approvals. Nat Med 2021; 27: 582–584.

European Commission . European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 March 2024 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on laying down harmonised rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union Legislative Acts. 2024. Available from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0138_EN.html [cited 2024 Oct 2].

Blumenthal-Barby

. An AI Bill of Rights: implications for health care AI and machine learning – a bioethics lens. Am J Bioeth 2023; 23: –6.

Cohen

. Informed consent and medical artificial intelligence: what to tell the patient? Georgetown Law J 2020; 108: 1425–1469. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3529576

Braun

Clarke

. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006; 3: 77–101.

10.

European Parliament . Regulation (EU) 2016/679…(General Data Protection Regulation). 2016. Available from: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj [cited 2024 Oct 2].

11.

Duggal

Tripathi

. Ethical principles in dental healthcare: relevance in the current technological era of artificial intelligence. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2024; 14: 317–321.

12.

Mennella

Maniscalco

De Pietro

, et al. Ethical and regulatory challenges of AI technologies in healthcare: a narrative review. Heliyon 2024; 10: e26297.

13.

El Khoury

Hadid

El-Outa

. Exploring the ethical landscape of artificial intelligence in dentistry: insights from a cross-sectional study. Cureus 2025; 17: e82667.

14.

McInnis

Pindus

Kareem

, et al. Factors influencing informed consent preferences in digital health research: survey study of prospective participants. J Med Internet Res 2025; 27: e63349.

15.

Roganović

Radenković

Miličić

. Responsible use of artificial intelligence in dentistry: survey on dentists’ and final-year undergraduates’ perspectives. Healthcare (Basel) 2023; 11: 1480.

16.

Roganović

. Consent for artificial intelligence in dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 2025; 156(1): 6–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2024.08.019

17.

Pruski

. AI-enhanced healthcare: not a new paradigm for informed consent. J Bioeth Inq 2024; 21(3): 475–489. DOI: 10.1007/s11673-023-10320-0

18.

World Health Organization . Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health: WHO guidance. 2021. Available from: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/341996 [cited 2024 Oct 2].

19.

FDI World Dental Federation . Artificial intelligence in dentistry: innovation, challenges and opportunities. 2020. Available from: https://www.fdiworlddental.org/resources/white-papers/artificial-intelligence-dentistry [cited 2024 Oct 2].

20.

Mourby

Cathaoir

KÓ

Collin

. Transparency of machine-learning in healthcare: the GDPR & European health law. Comput Law Secur Rev 2021; 43: 105611.

21.

Wachter

Mittelstadt

Floridi

. Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the general data protection regulation. Int Data Privacy Law 2017; 7: 76–99.

22.

Shuttleworth

KMJ

. Medical artificial intelligence and the black box problem: a view based on the ethical principle of “do no harm.”. Intell Med 2023; 4: 52–57.

23.

Radenković

. Importance of decisional capacity tools in obtaining informed consent in clinical settings. Bioethics 2022; 37: 146–153.

24.

Park

. Patient perspectives on informed consent for medical AI: a web-based experiment. Digit Health 2024; 10: 20552076241247938. DOI: 10.1177/20552076241247938

25.

Bester

Cole

Kodish

. The limits of informed consent for an overwhelmed patient: clinicians’ role in protecting patients and preventing overwhelm. AMA J Ethics 2016; 18: 869–886.

26.

Fischbeck

Petrowski

Renovanz

, et al. Anxiety is associated with unfulfilled information needs and pain at the informed consent consultation of spine surgery patients: a longitudinal study. Eur Spine J 2021; 30: 2360–2367.

27.

Roganović

. Mitigating placebo effect in human-AI interaction: expanding the role(s) of the right to notice and explanation. Am J Bioeth 2025; 25: 148–150.

28.

Roganović

Barać

. Rational antibiotic prescribing is underpinned by dental ethics principles: survey on postgraduate and undergraduate dental students’ perceptions. Antibiotics (Basel) 2024; 13: 60.

29.

Albano

Galiano

Basile

, et al. Artificial intelligence for radiographic imaging detection of caries lesions: a systematic review. BMC Oral Health 2024; 24: 74.

30.

Altukroni

Alsaeedi

Gonzalez-Losada

, et al. Detection of the pathological exposure of pulp using an artificial intelligence tool: a multicentric study over periapical radiographs. BMC Oral Health 2023; 23: 53.

31.

Bağ

Bilgir

Bayrakdar

İŞ

, et al. An artificial intelligence study: automatic description of anatomic landmarks on panoramic radiographs in the pediatric population. BMC Oral Health 2023; 23: 64.

32.

Endres

Hillen

Salloumis

, et al. Development of a deep learning algorithm for periapical disease detection in dental radiographs. Diagnostics (Basel) 2020; 10: 30.

33.

Fukuda

Inamoto

Shibata

, et al. Evaluation of an artificial intelligence system for detecting vertical root fracture on panoramic radiography. Oral Radiol 2020; 36: 337–343.

34.

Orhan

Bayrakdar

Ezhov

, et al. Evaluation of artificial intelligence for detecting periapical pathosis on cone-beam computed tomography scans. Int Endod J 2020; 53: 680–689.

35.

Vicory

Chandradevan

Hernandez-Cerdan

, et al. Dental microfracture detection using wavelet features and machine learning. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 2021; 11596: 115961R.

36.

Bao

Zhang

, et al. Evaluating the accuracy of automated cephalometric analysis based on artificial intelligence. BMC Oral Health 2023; 23: 91.

37.

Duan

Chen

Zhang

, et al. Refined tooth and pulp segmentation using U-net in CBCT image. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2021; 50: 20200251.

38.

Liu

, et al. Machine learning-based decision support system for orthognathic diagnosis and treatment planning. BMC Oral Health 2024; 24: 86.

39.

Hiraiwa

Ariji

Fukuda

, et al. A deep-learning artificial intelligence system for assessment of root morphology of the mandibular first molar on panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2019; 48: 20180218.

40.

Herbst

Schwendicke

Krois

, et al. Association between patient-, tooth- and treatment-level factors and root canal treatment failure: a retrospective longitudinal and machine learning study. J Dent 2022; 117: 103937.

41.

Lin

Yang

, et al. Machine learning models for prognosis prediction in endodontic microsurgery. J Dent 2022; 118: 103947.

42.

Tanikawa

Tan

Takada

. Facial soft-tissue shape changes after fixed edgewise treatment with premolar extraction in individual artificial-intelligence-classified facial profile patterns. BMC Oral Health 2024; 24: 40.

43.

Wang

Xia

Yan

, et al. Root canal treatment planning by automatic tooth and root canal segmentation in dental CBCT with deep multi-task feature learning. Med Image Anal 2023; 85: 102750.

44.

Zheng

Wang

Mei

, et al. Artificial intelligence in digital cariology: a new tool for the diagnosis of deep caries and pulpitis using convolutional neural networks. Ann Transl Med 2021; 9: 63.

45.

Ghaffari

Zhu

Shrestha

. A review of advancements of artificial intelligence in dentistry. Dent Rev 2024; 4: 100081.

46.

Nazer

Zatarah

Waldrip

, et al. Bias in artificial intelligence algorithms and recommendations for mitigation. PLOS Digit Health 2023; 2: e0000278.

47.

Vodanović

Subašić

Milošević

, et al. Artificial intelligence in medicine and dentistry. Acta Stomatol Croat 2023; 57: 70–84.

48.

Roganović

. Familiarity with ChatGPT features modifies expectations and learning outcomes of dental students. Int Dent J 2024; 74: 1456–1462.

49.

Murdoch

. Privacy and artificial intelligence: challenges for protecting health information in a new era. BMC Med Ethics 2021; 22(1): 122. DOI: 10.1186/s12910-021-00687-3

50.

Eldakak

Alremeithi

Dahiyat

, et al. Civil liability for the actions of autonomous AI in healthcare: an invitation to further contemplation. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 2024; 11. doi:10.1057/s41599-024-02806-y

51.

Truby

Brown

Ibrahim

, et al. A sandbox approach to regulating high-risk artificial intelligence applications. Eur J Risk Regul 2021; 13(2): 270–294.

Developing a consent checklist for AI in dentistry: Thematic analysis and pilot survey validation

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Method

Thematic analysis

Empirical assessment

Results

Overview of included literature

Thematic findings

Consent checklist and flowchart

Practicing dentists’ assessments on proposed consent checklist and flowchart

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusions

Best practice

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCID iD

Ethical approval

Author contribution

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

References