Dental Traumatology,
Год журнала:
2025,
Номер
unknown
Опубликована: Янв. 24, 2025
ABSTRACT
Background
This
study
assessed
the
accuracy
and
consistency
of
responses
provided
by
six
Artificial
Intelligence
(AI)
applications,
ChatGPT
version
3.5
(OpenAI),
4
4.0
Perplexity
(Perplexity.AI),
Gemini
(Google),
Copilot
(Bing),
to
questions
related
emergency
management
avulsed
teeth.
Materials
Methods
Two
pediatric
dentists
developed
18
true
or
false
regarding
dental
avulsion
asked
public
chatbots
for
3
days.
The
were
recorded
compared
with
correct
answers.
SPSS
program
was
used
calculate
obtained
accuracies
their
consistency.
Results
achieved
highest
rate
95.6%
over
entire
time
frame,
while
(Perplexity.AI)
had
lowest
67.2%.
(OpenAI)
only
AI
that
perfect
agreement
real
answers,
except
at
noon
on
day
1.
showed
weakest
(6
times).
Conclusions
With
exception
ChatGPT's
paid
version,
4.0,
do
not
seem
ready
use
as
main
resource
in
managing
teeth
during
emergencies.
It
might
prove
beneficial
incorporate
International
Association
Dental
Traumatology
(IADT)
guidelines
chatbot
databases,
enhancing
Dental Traumatology,
Год журнала:
2024,
Номер
unknown
Опубликована: Окт. 17, 2024
This
study
aimed
to
assess
the
validity
and
reliability
of
AI
chatbots,
including
Bing,
ChatGPT
3.5,
Google
Gemini,
Claude
AI,
in
addressing
frequently
asked
questions
(FAQs)
related
dental
trauma.
Dental Traumatology,
Год журнала:
2024,
Номер
unknown
Опубликована: Ноя. 22, 2024
ABSTRACT
Background/Aim
Artificial
intelligence
(AI)
chatbots
have
become
increasingly
prevalent
in
recent
years
as
potential
sources
of
online
healthcare
information
for
patients
when
making
medical/dental
decisions.
This
study
assessed
the
readability,
quality,
and
accuracy
responses
provided
by
three
AI
to
questions
related
traumatic
dental
injuries
(TDIs),
either
retrieved
from
popular
question‐answer
sites
or
manually
created
based
on
hypothetical
case
scenarios.
Materials
Methods
A
total
59
injury
queries
were
directed
at
ChatGPT
3.5,
4.0,
Google
Gemini.
Readability
was
evaluated
using
Flesch
Reading
Ease
(FRE)
Flesch–Kincaid
Grade
Level
(FKGL)
scores.
To
assess
response
quality
accuracy,
DISCERN
tool,
Global
Quality
Score
(GQS),
misinformation
scores
used.
The
understandability
actionability
analyzed
Patient
Education
Assessment
Tool
Printed
(PEMAT‐P)
tool.
Statistical
analysis
included
Kruskal–Wallis
with
Dunn's
post
hoc
test
non‐normal
variables,
one‐way
ANOVA
Tukey's
normal
variables
(
p
<
0.05).
Results
mean
FKGL
FRE
Gemini
11.2
49.25,
11.8
46.42,
10.1
51.91,
respectively,
indicating
that
difficult
read
required
a
college‐level
reading
ability.
3.5
had
lowest
PEMAT‐P
among
0.001).
4.0
rated
higher
(GQS
score
5)
compared
Conclusions
In
this
study,
although
widely
used,
some
misleading
inaccurate
about
TDIs.
contrast,
generated
more
accurate
comprehensive
answers,
them
reliable
auxiliary
sources.
However,
complex
issues
like
TDIs,
no
chatbot
can
replace
dentist
diagnosis,
treatment,
follow‐up
care.
Dental Traumatology,
Год журнала:
2025,
Номер
unknown
Опубликована: Янв. 24, 2025
ABSTRACT
Background
This
study
assessed
the
accuracy
and
consistency
of
responses
provided
by
six
Artificial
Intelligence
(AI)
applications,
ChatGPT
version
3.5
(OpenAI),
4
4.0
Perplexity
(Perplexity.AI),
Gemini
(Google),
Copilot
(Bing),
to
questions
related
emergency
management
avulsed
teeth.
Materials
Methods
Two
pediatric
dentists
developed
18
true
or
false
regarding
dental
avulsion
asked
public
chatbots
for
3
days.
The
were
recorded
compared
with
correct
answers.
SPSS
program
was
used
calculate
obtained
accuracies
their
consistency.
Results
achieved
highest
rate
95.6%
over
entire
time
frame,
while
(Perplexity.AI)
had
lowest
67.2%.
(OpenAI)
only
AI
that
perfect
agreement
real
answers,
except
at
noon
on
day
1.
showed
weakest
(6
times).
Conclusions
With
exception
ChatGPT's
paid
version,
4.0,
do
not
seem
ready
use
as
main
resource
in
managing
teeth
during
emergencies.
It
might
prove
beneficial
incorporate
International
Association
Dental
Traumatology
(IADT)
guidelines
chatbot
databases,
enhancing
