Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39030766›Full record

ArticleJournal of periodontal research2025

Performance of three artificial intelligence (AI)-based large language models in standardized testing; implications for AI-assisted dental education.

Hamoun Sabri, Muhammad H A Saleh, Parham Hazrati, Keith Merchant, Jonathan Misch, Purnima S Kumar, Hom-Lay Wang, Shayan Barootchi

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of periodontal research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Evaluating Guideline Adherence in Gemini-Powered Dental Trauma Workflows: Standalone Gemini Chat vs. Document-Grounded NotebookLM.Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Evaluating Dental Students' Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Driven Large Language Models in Education in Saudi Arabia.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026
    Article
  11. Accuracy and Temporal Consistency of ChatGPT and Gemini in Responding to Textbook and Patient-Oriented Dental Bleaching Questions: A Multi-Session Comparative Study.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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.

Hamoun SabriDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6581-2104
Muhammad H A SalehDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Parham HazratiDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8362-3208
Keith MerchantNaval Post-Graduate Dental School, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Jonathan MischDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Purnima S KumarDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5844-1341
Hom-Lay WangDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4238-1799
Shayan BarootchiDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5347-6577

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe emerging rise in novel computer technologies and automated data analytics has the potential to change the course of dental education. In line with our long-term goal of harnessing the power of AI to augment didactic teaching, the objective of this study was to quantify and compare the accuracy of responses provided by ChatGPT (GPT-4 and GPT-3.5) and Google Gemini, the three primary large language models (LLMs), to human graduate students (control group) to the annual in-service examination questions posed by the American Academy of Periodontology (AAP).

methodsUnder a comparative cross-sectional study design, a corpus of 1312 questions from the annual in-service examination of AAP administered between 2020 and 2023 were presented to the LLMs. Their responses were analyzed using chi-square tests, and the performance was juxtaposed to the scores of periodontal residents from corresponding years, as the human control group. Additionally, two sub-analyses were performed: one on the performance of the LLMs on each section of the exam; and in answering the most difficult questions.

resultsChatGPT-4 (total average: 79.57%) outperformed all human control groups as well as GPT-3.5 and Google Gemini in all exam years (p < .001). This chatbot showed an accuracy range between 78.80% and 80.98% across the various exam years. Gemini consistently recorded superior performance with scores of 70.65% (p = .01), 73.29% (p = .02), 75.73% (p < .01), and 72.18% (p = .0008) for the exams from 2020 to 2023 compared to ChatGPT-3.5, which achieved 62.5%, 68.24%, 69.83%, and 59.27% respectively. Google Gemini (72.86%) surpassed the average scores achieved by first- (63.48% ± 31.67) and second-year residents (66.25% ± 31.61) when all exam years combined. However, it could not surpass that of third-year residents (69.06% ± 30.45).

conclusionsWithin the confines of this analysis, ChatGPT-4 exhibited a robust capability in answering AAP in-service exam questions in terms of accuracy and reliability while Gemini and ChatGPT-3.5 showed a weaker performance. These findings underscore the potential of deploying LLMs as an educational tool in periodontics and oral implantology domains. However, the current limitations of these models such as inability to effectively process image-based inquiries, the propensity for generating inconsistent responses to the same prompts, and achieving high (80% by GPT-4) but not absolute accuracy rates should be considered. An objective comparison of their capability versus their capacity is required to further develop this field of study.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEducational MeasurementEducation, DentalPeriodonticsCross-Sectional StudiesHumansLarge Language ModelsAmerican Academy of Periodontologyartificial intelligenceChatGPTChatGPT‐3.5ChatGPT‐4dental educationGeminiGoogle BardGoogle Geminiperiodontal education

Identifiers

PMID39030766
PMCPMC11873669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.