Too many practices treat informed consent like a form to be signed five minutes before treatment. The ADA says that is not enough. Its guidance states that informed consent requires a dentist-patient conversation, that the patient must have the opportunity to ask questions, and that a signed form without that conversation is not legally compliant informed consent. The discussion is supposed to cover the condition, proposed treatment, benefits, risks, alternatives, and the option of no treatment.

That matters because a signature proves very little by itself. Florida board materials note that written, signed informed consent can create a rebuttable presumption of valid consent, but they also specify that procedure-specific consent should list expected outcomes, potential complications, risks, benefits, and the need for additional treatment in higher-risk procedures. Minnesota’s recordkeeping rule goes further by requiring documentation that options, prognosis, benefits, and risks were discussed and that the patient consented to the chosen treatment.

There is also a human factor that dentists underestimate: recall. A published dental study reported that patients often sign consent forms without understanding the information and that retention of vital information declines significantly within a short time after surgery. That is one more reason consent should be treated as an ongoing communication process, not a rushed administrative event.

The strongest consent process starts before the procedure and leaves a trail in the record. The ADA recommends procedure-specific forms, obtaining informed consent in advance for complex treatment, and making notes in the patient record at the time of the conversation. A good signature supports that process. It does not replace it.