Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37349791›Full record

ArticleHead & face medicine2023

Patients' perspectives on the use of artificial intelligence in dentistry: a regional survey.

Nasim Ayad, Falk Schwendicke, Joachim Krois, Stefanie van den Bosch, Stefaan Bergé, Lauren Bohner, Marcel Hanisch, Shankeeth Vinayahalingam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Head & face medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Dental Students' Opinions on Use of Artificial Intelligence: A Survey Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Nasim AyadDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hospital University Münster, 48149, Münster, Germany. nasim@ayad.de.
Falk SchwendickeDepartment of Oral Diagnostics and Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Aßmannshauser Str. 4-6, 14197, Berlin, Germany.
Joachim KroisDepartment of Oral Diagnostics and Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Aßmannshauser Str. 4-6, 14197, Berlin, Germany.
Stefanie van den BoschDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Stefaan BergéDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Lauren BohnerDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hospital University Münster, 48149, Münster, Germany.
Marcel Hanisch *Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hospital University Münster, 48149, Münster, Germany.
Shankeeth Vinayahalingam *Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hospital University Münster, 48149, Münster, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in dentistry is rapidly evolving and could play a major role in a variety of dental fields. This study assessed patients' perceptions and expectations regarding AI use in dentistry. An 18-item questionnaire survey focused on demographics, expectancy, accountability, trust, interaction, advantages and disadvantages was responded to by 330 patients; 265 completed questionnaires were included in this study. Frequencies and differences between age groups were analysed using a two-sided chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests with Monte Carlo approximation. Patients' perceived top three disadvantages of AI use in dentistry were (1) the impact on workforce needs (37.7%), (2) new challenges on doctor-patient relationships (36.2%) and (3) increased dental care costs (31.7%). Major expected advantages were improved diagnostic confidence (60.8%), time reduction (48.3%) and more personalised and evidencebased disease management (43.0%). Most patients expected AI to be part of the dental workflow in 1-5 (42.3%) or 5-10 (46.8%) years. Older patients (> 35 years) expected higher AI performance standards than younger patients (18-35 years) (p < 0.05). Overall, patients showed a positive attitude towards AI in dentistry. Understanding patients' perceptions may allow professionals to shape AI-driven dentistry in the future.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDental CareAdolescentAdultHumansPerceptionYoung AdultArtificial intelligenceMachine learningPatient surveyPerceptionQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID37349791
PMCPMC10288769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.