ArticleBMC oral health2025
Performance of artificial intelligence chatbots in responding to the frequently asked questions of patients regarding dental prostheses.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. 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.
- Performance of AI chatbots in responding to patients' frequently asked questions about laminate veneer restorations.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- A bilingual evaluation of chatbot performance in bruxism-related information: accuracy and readability across two models.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of AI Chatbot Responses to a Standardized Patient Query on Myelin Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein Antibody-Associated Disease: Cross-Sectional Content Analysis.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Assessing the accuracy, reliability, quality, and readability of artificial intelligence chatbots in patient education: insights from zirconia crowns.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- A comparative analysis of embedded chatbot models and ChatGPT-4 for answering orthodontic treatment queries.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparative assessment of AI-generated responses to frequently asked questions by parents on space maintainers in pediatric dentistry.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Can artificial intelligence chatbots think like dentists? A comparative analysis based on dental specialty examination questions in restorative dentistry.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Performance comparison of large language models on pediatric dentistry questions in the Turkish dentistry specialization examination.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- 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
- Cross-lingual performance of large language models in maxillofacial prosthodontics: a comparative evaluation.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Responses from ChatGPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Grok 4, and Claude Sonnet-4 Chatbots to Questions About Endodontic Iatrogenic Events.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Benchmarking large-language-model vision capabilities in oral and maxillofacial anatomy: A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2025Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are increasingly used in healthcare to address patient questions by providing personalized responses. Evaluating their performance is essential to ensure their reliability. This study aimed to assess the performance of three AI chatbots in responding to the frequently asked questions (FAQs) of patients regarding dental prostheses.
methodsThirty-one frequently asked questions (FAQs) were collected from accredited organizations' websites and the "People Also Ask" feature of Google, focusing on removable and fixed prosthodontics. Two board-certified prosthodontists evaluated response quality using the modified Global Quality Score (GQS) on a 5-point Likert scale. Inter-examiner agreement was assessed using weighted kappa. Readability was measured using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) indices. Statistical analyses were performed using repeated measures ANOVA and Friedman test, with Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons (α = 0.05).
resultsThe inter-examiner agreement was good. Among the chatbots, Google Gemini had the highest quality score (4.58 ± 0.50), significantly outperforming Microsoft Copilot (3.87 ± 0.89) (P =.004). Readability analysis showed ChatGPT (10.45 ± 1.26) produced significantly more complex responses compared to Gemini (7.82 ± 1.19) and Copilot (8.38 ± 1.59) (P <.001). FRE scores indicated that ChatGPT's responses were categorized as fairly difficult (53.05 ± 7.16), while Gemini's responses were in plain English (64.94 ± 7.29), with a significant difference between them (P <.001).
conclusionsAI chatbots show great potential in answering patient inquiries about dental prostheses. However, improvements are needed to enhance their effectiveness as patient education tools.
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.