ArticleDental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology2025
Evaluation of Information Provided by ChatGPT Versions on Traumatic Dental Injuries for Dental Students and Professionals.
Article in Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- New Frontiers in Dental Traumatology: Innovation, Prevention, and Clinical Practice.Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Large Language Model-Based Chatbots for Dental Trauma Management: A Comparative Study Based on Accuracy, Consistency and Information Quality.Australian endodontic journal : the journal of the Australian Society of Endodontology Inc · 2026Article
- Can artificial intelligence applications be utilised in the management of dental trauma? A comparison of ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Accuracy, readability, and content coverage of AI-generated responses to questions on functional appliances.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- AI-based diagnostic evaluation of GPT-4o for crown-fracture detection on maxillary periapical radiographs: effects of prompt detail and customization.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Generative Artificial Intelligence and Large Language Models in Paediatric Dentistry: A Scoping Review.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Evaluation of ChatGPT's ability to detect intraosseous pathologies with panoramic radiographs.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Comparative performance of large language models for patient-oriented support in dental trauma emergencies.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- The impact of language differences on the readability, quality, and reliability of information provided by artificial intelligence chatbots regarding vital pulp therapy: a cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Comparison of two different artificial intelligence chatbots that provide information to patients and parents about primary tooth pulpotomy treatments.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Performance of Artificial Intelligence Based Chatbots in Providing First Aid Information on Dental Trauma According to the ToothSOS Application.Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimThe use of AI-driven chatbots for accessing medical information is increasingly popular among educators and students. This study aims to assess two different ChatGPT models-ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4.0-regarding their responses to queries about traumatic dental injuries, specifically for dental students and professionals. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 40 questions were prepared, divided equally between those concerning definitions and diagnosis and those on treatment and follow-up. The responses from both ChatGPT versions were evaluated on several criteria: quality, reliability, similarity, and readability. These evaluations were conducted using the Global Quality Scale (GQS), the Reliability Scoring System (adapted DISCERN), the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level (FKRGL), and the Similarity Index. Normality was checked with the Shapiro-Wilk test, and variance homogeneity was assessed using the Levene test.
resultsThe analysis revealed that ChatGPT 3.5 provided more original responses compared to ChatGPT 4.0. According to FRES scores, both versions were challenging to read, with ChatGPT 3.5 having a higher FRES score (39.732 ± 9.713) than ChatGPT 4.0 (34.813 ± 9.356), indicating relatively better readability. There were no significant differences between the ChatGPT versions regarding GQS, DISCERN, and FKRGL scores. However, in the definition and diagnosis section, ChatGPT 4.0 had a statistically higher quality score than ChatGPT 3.5. In contrast, ChatGPT 3.5 provided more original answers in the treatment and follow-up section. For ChatGPT 4.0, the readability and similarity rates for the definition and diagnosis section were higher than those for the treatment and follow-up section. No significant differences were observed between ChatGPT 3.5's DISCERN, FRES, FKRGL, and similarity index measurements by topic.
conclusionsBoth ChatGPT versions offer high-quality and original information, though they present challenges in readability and reliability. They are valuable resources for dental students and professionals but should be used in conjunction with additional sources of information for a comprehensive understanding.
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.