ArticleCureus2024
Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence as a Search Tool for Patients: Can ChatGPT-4 Provide Accurate Evidence-Based Orthodontic-Related Information?
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of large language models in dental diagnosis, decision-making, and communication: A systematic review.The Japanese dental science review · 2026Review
- Patient-Facing AI Chatbot Treatment-Direction Advice in Orthodontic Health Communication: A Scenario-Based Comparison with Expert Consensus.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Patient Facing AI Chatbots in Digital Orthodontic Education: A Comparative Evaluation of Understandability, Actionability, Quality, and Safety of Dietary Advice.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Generative Artificial Intelligence-driven orthodontic education practices.BMC medical education · 2026Review
- Orthodontic knowledge assessment: A comparison of five AI Chatbots.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Article
- A comparative analysis of embedded chatbot models and ChatGPT-4 for answering orthodontic treatment queries.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Readability and Quality of Chatbot Responses to Periodontal Patient Queries: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Three Publicly Accessible Large Language Models.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-powered chatbots' responses to orthodontic questions from the dentistry specialization examination: Accuracy and source evaluation.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Article
- Performance of AI-Chatbots to Common Temporomandibular Joint Disorders (TMDs) Patient Queries: Accuracy, Completeness, Reliability and Readability.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2025Article
- Performance of ChatGPT-4 as an Auxiliary Tool: Evaluation of Accuracy and Repeatability on Orthodontic Radiology Questions.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence Applications in Pediatric Craniofacial Surgery.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Conversational artificial intelligence compared with orthodontic reference standards for orthodontic information: A systematic review of accuracy, readability, safety, and certainty of evidence.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchReview
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionArtificial intelligence (AI) is already a part of our reality. Many people started using ChatGPT in their daily life, replacing existing web browsers. The confidence people put in the ability of ChatGPT to provide accurate medical information is increasing. With that, the need for proper assessment tools for the safety and reliability of ChatGPT is also crucial.
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the accuracy, reliability, and quality of information provided by ChatGPT-4 on three specific orthodontic topics, namely, impacted canines, interceptive orthodontic treatment, and orthognathic surgery, as evaluated by five experienced orthodontists using a Likert scale ranking method. MATERIALS AND
methodsUsing ChatGPT version 4, 20 most commonly asked questions were generated and answered on the following topics: impacted canines, interceptive treatment, and orthognathic surgery. The evaluation of the quality of the answers provided was done by five experienced orthodontists. Quality assessment was done using the Likert scale ranking method.
resultsThe quality answers generated by a conversational AI system (ChatGPT4) were evaluated by five experienced orthodontists for three topics: impacted canines, interceptive orthodontics, and orthognathic surgery. The evaluators rated each question-answer pair on a five-point scale from "very poor" to "very good." The results showed that the AI system produced generally good quality information for all topics, with no significant difference between them. The inter-rater agreement among the experts was low, indicating some variability in their judgments.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that ChatGPT4 can provide generally good information on impacted canines, interceptive treatment, and orthognathic surgery. However, answers provided should be handled with caution due to variability and lack of reliability and should not be considered a substitute for professional opinion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.