OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of non-specialist dentists on the use of restraint in paediatric dentistry in the Public Dental Service in Norway. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Two focus group interviews involving four and five dentists, respectively, were conducted in one of the most populated counties in Norway in September 2019. The thematic analysis by Braun and Clarke informed the qualitative analysis. RESULTS: According to the dentists, physical restraint in paediatric dentistry is usually used when dental treatment is absolutely necessary. The qualitative analysis revealed the following three main themes: (1) some dentists justify the use of restraint in paediatric dentistry; (2) physical restraint is often legitimised by the fact that the child is sedated; (3) the use of restraint evokes difficult ethical evaluations. Additionally, the dentists had an overarching perspective of acting in the child's best interest, but they sometimes struggled to find a justifiable path in situations involving restraint. CONCLUSIONS: Dentists seem to consider the use of restraint combined with sedation as legitimate for absolute necessary dental treatment. Furthermore, the use of restraint involves difficult ethical evaluations.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of non-specialist dentists on the use of restraint in paediatric dentistry in the Public Dental Service in Norway. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Two focus group interviews involving four and five dentists, respectively, were conducted in one of the most populated counties in Norway in September 2019. The thematic analysis by Braun and Clarke informed the qualitative analysis. RESULTS: According to the dentists, physical restraint in paediatric dentistry is usually used when dental treatment is absolutely necessary. The qualitative analysis revealed the following three main themes: (1) some dentists justify the use of restraint in paediatric dentistry; (2) physical restraint is often legitimised by the fact that the child is sedated; (3) the use of restraint evokes difficult ethical evaluations. Additionally, the dentists had an overarching perspective of acting in the child's best interest, but they sometimes struggled to find a justifiable path in situations involving restraint. CONCLUSIONS: Dentists seem to consider the use of restraint combined with sedation as legitimate for absolute necessary dental treatment. Furthermore, the use of restraint involves difficult ethical evaluations.