What patients actually remember from an orthodontic consultation

At the end of an orthodontic consultation, the practice knows what it explained.

The patient leaves with something different: what they understood, what felt important and what they can still remember.

Those two versions of the consultation are not necessarily the same.

In less than an hour, a patient may hear about appliance options, treatment duration, oral hygiene, risks, retention, alternatives and responsibilities. The clinician or treatment coordinator may have covered every point carefully. The patient may have asked sensible questions and appeared to understand.

Then the consultation ends.

By the time the patient is in the car, at home or explaining the appointment to someone else, they are no longer working from the consultation itself. They are working from memory.

That distinction is not just intuitive. It is measurable.

Orthodontic researchers have studied information recall and comprehension for more than two decades. The evidence does not support the simplistic claim that patients “forget everything,” and it does not identify one perfect way to present treatment information.

It suggests something more useful:

The consultation that was delivered and the consultation that survives are not necessarily the same.

The gap appears before the patient leaves

One of the most directly relevant studies was published in the Journal of Orthodontic Science in 2024.

Researchers studied 42 adults attending a private dental practice for an orthodontic consultation. The patients were considering bracket-based treatment or clear aligners and received a standardized 45-minute consultation from one of three general dental practitioners primarily providing orthodontics.

The consultation was substantial. It included photographs, a three-dimensional scan, treatment simulation, orthodontic assessment, treatment options, appliance types, advantages and disadvantages, estimated treatment time, appointment frequency, oral health, daily-life implications, retention, major and specific risks, and alternatives.

Immediately afterward, while still at the practice, patients completed a 20-item questionnaire testing recall.

The mean score was 15 out of 20, or 75%.

Only three of the 42 participants answered every tested item correctly.

That does not mean that exactly 25% of everything said during the consultation had been forgotten. The researchers tested 20 specific items rather than every sentence or concept discussed.

It does show something more defensible: even within minutes, there was a measurable gap between the information presented and the information patients could reproduce.

The study also deserves context. It was conducted at one private dental practice in the United Kingdom. The consultations were delivered by general dental practitioners primarily providing orthodontics rather than specialist orthodontists. The sample was unusually well educated: 83.4% reported a bachelor's, professional or doctorate degree, and 95.3% were native English speakers or reported professional-level English.

Its 75% mean score should therefore not be treated as a benchmark for U.S. orthodontic practices.

But it is unusually relevant because it measures recall immediately after a real private-practice consultation — one that already included visual aids alongside verbal explanation.

Earlier U.S. research found a similar problem in a very different population.

A 2003 study in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics examined 29 children aged 6 to 12 and their parents or guardians at a public dental clinic. The orthodontist's case presentation was recorded, and patients and parents were interviewed within 30 minutes.

The orthodontist discussed an average of 4.66 treatment risks.

Children recalled 0.66.

Parents recalled 1.48.

The population was young, ethnically diverse and low income, so those numbers should not be generalized to adult private practice. But the study reinforces the broader point: the information gap can appear almost immediately, not only after days or weeks of forgetting.

From this point, the evidence base broadens. Several of the experimental studies below examine orthodontic informed-consent procedures rather than the initial consultation itself. They are relevant to how orthodontic information is recalled and understood, but they should not be read as direct measurements of consultation performance.

Patients can remember the headline and lose the conditions

Recall is not uniformly poor.

Some information appears to survive much better than other information.

In the 2024 private-practice study, 97.6% of participants recalled improving appearance as a reason for orthodontic treatment.

Only 54.8% recalled maintaining the health of the teeth as a reason for treatment, and 40.5% recalled improved function.

The same pattern appeared elsewhere in the consultation.

The need to brush frequently during treatment was recalled by 95.2% of participants. The consequence of poor oral hygiene — decalcification — was recalled by 61.9%.

Eighty-one percent correctly recalled the average treatment duration.

For retention, 50% gave the response the researchers scored as correct: that retainers are always fitted after active treatment. Another 48% answered that retainers are “sometimes” fitted. The figure is therefore better interpreted as imperfect recall of the retention protocol than as evidence that half the sample had no awareness of retainers.

The researchers did not weight these questions by clinical importance. The percentages should not be turned into a ranking of which messages matter most.

What they show is that information does not survive uniformly.

Older research suggests the same thing over longer periods.

A 2007 British study examined 41 orthodontic patients and eight parents who had gone through the consent process at least six months earlier. Broad facts were often recalled well: 96% remembered the reason for treatment, 89.8% the appliance type and 83.3% the treatment length.

Recall of specific risks and conditions was much weaker. Decay was recalled by 36.8%, root resorption by fewer than 21%, retention by 56.3% and the length of retention by 35%.

The useful question is therefore not simply:

Do patients remember the consultation?

It is:

Which parts remain available when the patient later needs them?

A patient may remember the headline and lose some of the conditions attached to it.

Feeling informed is not the same as understanding

Remembering a statement is not the same as understanding it.

Recall is the ability to retrieve information that was presented.

Comprehension is the ability to understand what that information means.

Orthodontic research has measured both.

In a 2009 randomized controlled trial at Ohio State University, 90 patient-parent pairs were assigned to one of three informed-consent approaches. One group received the American Association of Orthodontists' informed consent form. Another received material with improved readability. A third received improved written material combined with audio and visual cues intended to make the information easier to process.

The combined approach improved patient recall and parent recall and comprehension compared with the traditional form.

But two other findings are especially relevant.

Recall was generally better than comprehension.

And both patients and parents overestimated how well they understood the material.

That creates a practical problem for any consultation.

A patient can remember hearing the phrase “root resorption” without understanding its meaning, probability or implications. A patient can also leave feeling well informed while being less able to reconstruct the information accurately than either the patient or the practice assumes.

So a question such as “Does that all make sense?” may be useful, but it cannot by itself establish what has actually been understood.

A chart can document that a topic was discussed.

It cannot tell the practice what the patient can still explain later.

What survives changes with time

Immediate recall is only part of the picture.

A 2022 randomized study followed orthodontic patient-parent pairs for six months after informed consent.

One group used a written rehearsal method in which participants actively described core and case-specific consent items. The other used an audiovisual approach based on existing best practices.

The rehearsal method had some advantages immediately after consent.

At six months, however, the two approaches were broadly comparable.

More importantly, follow-up knowledge scores were significantly lower than baseline scores. Treatment method, risks, discomfort and root resorption remained areas in which recall and comprehension were particularly weak.

The study does not establish a universal rate at which orthodontic information decays. Different studies use different populations, materials, questions and follow-up periods.

The conclusion is narrower:

What a patient can retrieve from a consultation changes with time.

That matters because many treatment decisions are not completed in the room.

A patient may reconsider the options later that day. A parent may discuss treatment at home. Questions may emerge after the initial appointment. The financial commitment, treatment responsibilities or risks may be revisited days later.

At that point, the practice is no longer there to reproduce the original explanation.

The patient is reconstructing it.

More information is not necessarily more usable information

A natural response to poor recall is to provide more information.

The orthodontic literature suggests that quantity alone is not the answer.

A 2022 systematic review examined 13 randomized controlled trials of interventions intended to increase patient involvement in orthodontic, orthognathic or cleft treatment decisions. Eleven of the 13 trials involved orthodontic patients.

Six reported significant improvements in patient knowledge or patient-reported outcomes.

But the interventions and outcome measures were too heterogeneous for the reviewers to identify one universally superior approach.

The individual trials help explain why.

A 2001 study compared written, verbal and visual information in 84 patient-parent pairs, with 28 pairs in each of the three groups. It found little overall difference among the methods, although the authors concluded that verbal information should be supplemented by written and/or visual information.

A 2006 randomized trial of 30 orthodontic patients found a small but significant recall advantage for mind maps and acronyms over a conventional leaflet.

A 2008 randomized study of 80 new orthodontic patients found higher information retention with a visual computer program than with a written leaflet when both groups also received verbal information.

In 2019, another randomized trial found higher retention in mind-map groups than in a leaflet group. Parents achieved higher knowledge scores than patients and forgot less over time.

But visual or audiovisual presentation is not automatically superior.

A 2021 randomized trial in adolescents found broadly similar knowledge scores immediately and one year later for a three-dimensional animation and for a conventional verbal explanation supported by a leaflet. The animation did, however, require less clinician time to deliver.

There is also evidence that sequence matters.

A 2012 Ohio State randomized study found that information presented earlier in an informed-consent sequence was generally understood better. The authors suggested putting the most important information first and treating later information as supplemental take-home material.

And in 2015, researchers tested whether adding another short video to an already improved process — with better readability, audiovisual support and a limited number of core and patient-specific information “chunks” — would improve recall and comprehension further.

It did not.

Taken together, the evidence does not support a simple rule such as “video beats paper.”

It supports a more useful principle:

The practical goal is not maximum information. It is information that remains usable.

Structure matters. Prioritization matters. Visual support can help. Written material can help. But adding more material does not automatically produce more understanding.

The evidence does not show that better recall increases case acceptance

There is an important boundary to this research.

Most of the orthodontic studies in this article investigate informed consent, patient education, recall or comprehension.

They do not test whether improving recall causes more patients to start treatment.

None of the studies cited here establishes a causal link between better recall and higher case acceptance.

That distinction should remain explicit.

A better-informed patient may decide to proceed.

A better-informed patient may also decide not to proceed.

The evidence supports improving the quality and durability of information because informed treatment decisions depend on understanding. It does not support treating information design as a proven technique for increasing treatment-start rates.

That makes the operational question more interesting, not less:

If a prospective patient is going to make or continue a decision after leaving the consultation, what information should still be available when that decision is being made?

The consultation should not have to survive on memory alone

The 2024 private-practice study concluded that verbal and visual information should be supplemented by written information tailored to the patient after the consultation.

That recommendation is consistent with much of the earlier orthodontic literature, although the evidence does not identify one perfect take-home format.

Several principles are reasonably supported.

Important information should be prioritized rather than buried in volume.

Spoken explanations should not be expected to carry the entire informational burden.

Visual information can improve retention in some settings, but adding more media is not automatically better.

The literature is most consistent with written material being useful when it gives the patient a structured, retrievable version of important information rather than simply reproducing everything that was said.

And practices should distinguish between information that was delivered and information that was understood and retained.

An explanation is an event. A treatment decision may happen later.

That is why the quality of the consultation cannot be judged only by what happened while the patient was sitting in the room.

A consultation is usually documented from the practice's perspective: what was shown, discussed, signed or provided.

The patient experiences it from the opposite direction: what made sense, what felt important and what remains accessible afterward.

Both perspectives matter.

They are not interchangeable.

What survives becomes the consultation

An orthodontic consultation may last 30 minutes, 45 minutes or longer.

The decision it informs can extend well beyond that.

Once the patient leaves, the practice cannot assume that every carefully explained point travels with them intact.

The evidence does not suggest that orthodontic patients remember nothing.

It suggests something more precise: recall is incomplete and selective; comprehension can be weaker than recall; confidence in understanding can exceed actual comprehension; and the information available to the patient can change with time.

That changes the standard by which a consultation should be judged.

The relevant question is not only:

Was the information explained clearly in the room?

It is also:

Can the patient still understand and accurately reconstruct the important parts after they leave?

Because once the consultation is over, the information that survives is the information the later decision has to work with.

—

Data and methodology

This article synthesizes peer-reviewed research on information recall and comprehension in orthodontic patients and parents, together with limited broader medical literature on patient memory.

The orthodontic evidence base is substantial enough to examine the question directly, but it has important limitations. Studies differ in population, age, setting, consultation design, treatment stage, information format, measurement tool and follow-up period. Results are therefore presented separately and are not combined into a single estimated “orthodontic recall rate.”

Private-practice adult consultation research. The 2024 study by Grybaite, Awawdeh and Singh examined 42 adults at one private dental practice in the United Kingdom. The consultations were delivered by general dental practitioners primarily providing orthodontics, not specialist orthodontists. The sample was highly educated, and recall was measured immediately after a standardized 45-minute consultation. Its 75% mean score should not be treated as a U.S. industry benchmark.

U.S. patient-parent informed-consent research. Several studies from the University of Washington and Ohio State University examined children or adolescents and their parents, often in public-clinic or university settings. These studies provide direct orthodontic evidence but do not necessarily represent the patient population or consultation process of a private U.S. orthodontic practice.

Information-format trials. Studies testing leaflets, visual programs, audiovisual presentations, mind maps, animations, chunking and written rehearsal use different interventions and outcome measures. They do not establish a universally superior communication format.

Systematic-review evidence. A 2022 systematic review included 13 randomized controlled trials of interventions intended to increase patient involvement in orthodontic, orthognathic or cleft treatment decisions; 11 involved orthodontic patients. Because the interventions and outcomes were heterogeneous, the authors used narrative rather than pooled synthesis and concluded that there is some evidence of benefit, not one proven best format.

Case acceptance. Most studies cited here evaluate informed consent, patient education, recall or comprehension. They do not establish that improving information retention increases treatment acceptance or practice revenue. Any application to case acceptance is therefore an operational inference, not a demonstrated causal effect.

Recall versus comprehension. Different studies define and test these outcomes differently. Remembering that information was presented is not equivalent to understanding its meaning, probability or consequences.

A broader medical context

A widely cited 2003 review by neuropsychologist Roy Kessels summarized medical research showing that patient memory for clinical information can be poor and can be affected by information volume, terminology, presentation format and patient characteristics.

That broader literature helps place the orthodontic findings in context. The conclusions in this article, however, rely primarily on orthodontic-specific studies.

Sources

Grybaite A, Awawdeh M, Singh P. Adult orthodontic consultations in private dental practice: How much information do patients remember when they leave the surgery? Journal of Orthodontic Science. 2024;13:48. doi:10.4103/jos.jos_86_23.

Mortensen MG, Kiyak HA, Omnell L. Patient and parent understanding of informed consent in orthodontics.00639-5) American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2003;124(5):541-550. doi:10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00639-5.

Kang EY, Fields HW, Kiyak HA, Beck FM, Firestone AR. Informed consent recall and comprehension in orthodontics: traditional vs improved readability and processability methods. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2009;136(4):488.e1-488.e13. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.02.018.

Ernst S, Elliot T, Patel A, et al. Consent to orthodontic treatment — is it working? British Dental Journal. 2007;202:E25. doi:10.1038/bdj.2007.329.

Thomson AM, Cunningham SJ, Hunt NP. A comparison of information retention at an initial orthodontic consultation. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2001;23(2):169-178. doi:10.1093/ejo/23.2.169.

Thickett E, Newton JT. Using written material to support recall of orthodontic information: a comparison of three methods. The Angle Orthodontist. 2006;76(2):243-250.

Patel JH, Moles DR, Cunningham SJ. Factors affecting information retention in orthodontic patients. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2008;133(4 Suppl):S61-S67. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.07.019.

Carr KM, Fields HW Jr, Beck FM, et al. Impact of verbal explanation and modified consent materials on orthodontic informed consent. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2012;141(2):174-186. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.043.

Pawlak CE, Fields HW Jr, Beck FM, Firestone AR. Orthodontic informed consent considering information load and serial position effect. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2015;147(3):363-372. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.11.021.

Ahn JHB, Power S, Thickett E, Andiappan M, Newton T. Information retention of orthodontic patients and parents: A randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2019;156(2):169-177.e2. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.03.017.

Shqaidef AJ, Saleh MYN, Ismail FK, Abu-Awad M, Khambay BS. A comparative assessment of information recall and comprehension between conventional leaflets and an animated video in adolescent patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment: A single-center, randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2021;160(1):11-18.e1. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.03.028.

Desman AR, Fields HW, Ni A, et al. Rehearsal's effect on long-term recall and comprehension of orthodontic informed consent. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2022;161(2):e114-e126. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2021.06.013.

Shelswell J, Patel VA, Barber S. The effectiveness of interventions to increase patient involvement in decision-making in orthodontics: A systematic review. Journal of Orthodontics. 2022;49(2):129-142. doi:10.1177/14653125211048202.

Kessels RPC. Patients' memory for medical information. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2003;96(5):219-222. doi:10.1177/014107680309600504.