A cross-sectional analysis of the reliability, content and readability of orthodontic retention and retainer informed consent forms

A cross-sectional analysis of the reliability, content and readability of orthodontic retention and retainer informed consent forms
Original Article
Maurice J. Meade, Sven Jensen, Xiangqun Ju, David Hunter, Lisa Jamieson
International Orthodontics, September 2025
Open Access
Summary
Objective
The aim of the study was to determine the reliability, quality and readability of content contained within informed consent forms concerning orthodontic retention and retainers provided by orthodontic treatment providers.
Methods
An online search strategy identified informed consent forms for evaluation. The DISCERN instrument was used to determine content reliability. Each form was assessed for the presence of pre-determined content regarding 11 domains. Analysis for quality of the domain content was via a 4-point scoring scale. The Simple Measure of Gobbledegook (SMOG) and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade-Level (FKGL) were employed to determine readability.
Results
Thirty-four forms satisfied selection criteria. The majority (n = 20; 58.8%) were sourced from websites in the US, with most (n = 22; 64.7%) from specialist orthodontist websites. The mean (SD) DISCERN score per form was 31.9 (4.5). The mean (SD) number of domains present within each form was 7.76 (1.65). The mean (SD) number of points scored per form was 14.82 (3.01) from a maximum of 33. Information regarding retainer review and relevant potential impacts on quality-of-life was lacking and scored poorly. The requirement for lifetime retention was stated in 25 (73.5%) forms. Forms sourced from specialist orthodontist websites scored higher (P = 0.016) than those sourced from general dentist and multi-disciplinary clinic websites. The median (IQR) SMOG and FKGL scores were 10.11 (9.55) and 9.95 (9.18) respectively.
Conclusions
The reliability and quality of the informed consent forms concerning orthodontic retention and retainers was generally poor. The readability of the forms failed to meet recommended guidelines, meaning that many are likely not to comprehend the information provided.