Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38242810›Full record

ArticleInternational dental journal2024

Performance of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Dental Licensing Examinations.

Reinhard Chun Wang Chau, Khaing Myat Thu, Ollie Yiru Yu, Richard Tai-Chiu Hsung, Edward Chin Man Lo, Walter Yu Hang Lam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International dental journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

83 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Educational Applications of ChatGPT in University-Based Dental Education. A Systematic Review.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Beyond the Drill: Can Digital Gadgets Redefine the Future of Dental Education?European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Reinhard Chun Wang ChauFaculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
Khaing Myat ThuFaculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
Ollie Yiru YuFaculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
Richard Tai-Chiu HsungFaculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China; Department of Computer Science, Hong Kong Chu Hai College, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
Edward Chin Man LoFaculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
Walter Yu Hang LamFaculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China; Musketeers Foundation Institute of Data Science, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China. Electronic address: retlaw@hku.hk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesGenerative artificial intelligence (GenAI), including large language models (LLMs), has vast potential applications in health care and education. However, it is unclear how proficient LLMs are in interpreting written input and providing accurate answers in dentistry. This study aims to investigate the accuracy of GenAI in answering questions from dental licensing examinations.

methodsA total of 1461 multiple-choice questions from question books for the US and the UK dental licensing examinations were input into 2 versions of ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0. The passing rates of the US and UK dental examinations were 75.0% and 50.0%, respectively. The performance of the 2 versions of GenAI in individual examinations and dental subjects was analysed and compared.

resultsChatGPT 3.5 correctly answered 68.3% (n = 509) and 43.3% (n = 296) of questions from the US and UK dental licensing examinations, respectively. The scores for ChatGPT 4.0 were 80.7% (n = 601) and 62.7% (n = 429), respectively. ChatGPT 4.0 passed both written dental licensing examinations, whilst ChatGPT 3.5 failed. ChatGPT 4.0 answered 327 more questions correctly and 102 incorrectly compared to ChatGPT 3.5 when comparing the 2 versions.

conclusionsThe newer version of GenAI has shown good proficiency in answering multiple-choice questions from dental licensing examinations. Whilst the more recent version of GenAI generally performed better, this observation may not hold true in all scenarios, and further improvements are necessary. The use of GenAI in dentistry will have significant implications for dentist-patient communication and the training of dental professionals.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEducational MeasurementLicensure, DentalHumansUnited KingdomUnited StatesArtificial intelligenceCommunicationDental educationDigital technologyExamination questionsSpecialties, Dental

Identifiers

PMID38242810
PMCPMC11123518

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.