Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40016760›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2025

Exploring the potential of artificial intelligence chatbots in prosthodontics education.

Ravza Eraslan, Mustafa Ayata, Filiz Yagci, Haydar Albayrak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

4 authors.

Ravza EraslanDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0863-7052
Mustafa AyataPrivate Practice, Ortoperio Oral and Dental Health Polyclinic, Kayseri, Türkiye. dt.mustafaayata@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6102-9729
Filiz YagciDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1917-0822
Haydar AlbayrakDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2833-1317

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of widely used artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots in answering prosthodontics questions from the Dentistry Specialization Residency Examination (DSRE).

methodsA total of 126 DSRE prosthodontics questions were divided into seven subtopics (dental morphology, materials science, fixed dentures, removable partial dentures, complete dentures, occlusion/temporomandibular joint, and dental implantology). Questions were translated into English by the authors, and this version of the questions were asked to five chatbots (ChatGPT-3.5, Gemini Advanced, Claude Pro, Microsoft Copilot, and Perplexity) within a 7-day period. Statistical analyses, including chi-square and z-tests, were performed to compare accuracy rates across the chatbots and subtopics at a significance level of 0.05.

resultsThe overall accuracy rates for the chatbots were as follows: Copilot (73%), Gemini (63.5%), ChatGPT-3.5 (61.1%), Claude Pro (57.9%), and Perplexity (54.8%). Copilot significantly outperformed Perplexity (P = 0.035). However, no significant differences in accuracy were found across subtopics among chatbots. Questions on dental implantology had the highest accuracy rate (75%), while questions on removable partial dentures had the lowest (50.8%).

conclusionCopilot showed the highest accuracy rate (73%), significantly outperforming Perplexity (54.8%). AI models demonstrate potential as educational support tools but currently face limitations in serving as reliable educational tools across all areas of prosthodontics. Future advancements in AI may lead to better integration and more effective use in dental education.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEducational MeasurementEducation, DentalProsthodonticsGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansInternship and ResidencyAI chatbot evaluationArtificial intelligence applicationsClinical decision-support systemsDentistry specializationProsthodontics education

Identifiers

PMID40016760
PMCPMC11869545

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.