Observational studyDental press journal of orthodontics2025
Effectiveness of AI-generated orthodontic treatment plans compared to expert orthodontist recommendations: a cross-sectional pilot study.
Observational study in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- AI in orthodontic treatment planning: a systematic review comparing learning approaches.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Applications of artificial intelligence in endodontic education: a systematic review.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Mapping the structure of an emerging field: A scientometric decoding of large language model applications in the dental field.The Japanese dental science review · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Generative Artificial Intelligence-driven orthodontic education practices.BMC medical education · 2026Review
- Perception of AI-generated smile versus real orthodontic treatment outcomes among dentists, students, and laypeople.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Development of an AI model to predict tooth movement during orthodontic treatment.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Orthodontic Biomechanical Reasoning with Multimodal Language Models: Performance and Clinical Utility.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionArtificial intelligence (AI) has become a prominent focus in orthodontics.
objectiveThis study aimed to compare treatment plans generated by AI platforms (ChatGPT, Google Bard, Microsoft Bing) with those formulated by an experienced orthodontist.
methodsThis observational cross-sectional pilot study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of AI-powered platforms in creating orthodontic treatment plans, using a clinical case treated by an experienced orthodontist as a benchmark. A clinical case was selected, and after obtaining informed consent, detailed case information was presented to ChatGPT-3.5, Microsoft Bing Copilot, and Google Bard Gemini for treatment planning. The AI-generated plans, along with the orthodontist's plan, were evaluated by 34 orthodontists using a questionnaire that included Likert scale and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) items. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the levels of agreement with the proposed treatment plans.
resultsOrthodontists exhibited significantly higher levels of agreement with treatment plans proposed by the orthodontist, compared to those generated by AIs platforms (p < 0.001). Both Likert scale and VAS scores indicated increased confidence in the orthodontist's expertise in formulating treatment plans. No significant differences were found among the AI platforms, though Google Bard received the lowest mean scores.
conclusionsOrthodontists demonstrated a higher level of acceptance of treatment plans formulated by human counterparts over those generated by AI platforms. While AI offers significant contributions, the clinical judgment and experience of orthodontists remain essential for thorough and effective treatment planning in orthodontics.
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.