SynthesisInternational dental journal2025
Can Large Language Models Serve as Reliable Tools for Information in Dentistry? A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in International dental journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language model use in dental education: a cross-sectional multi-country study.Medical education online · 2026Article
- ChatGPT-5 vs oral medicine experts for rank-based differential diagnosis of oral lesions: a prospective, biopsy-validated comparison.Odontology · 2026Article
- Accuracy, readability, and content coverage of AI-generated responses to questions on functional appliances.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Comparative assessment of quality, consistency, and reference accuracy of MIH-related clinical information generated by ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek R1.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Large language model use in oral and maxillofacial surgery training: a national resident survey.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026Article
- Performance of GPT-5, DeepSeek, and Claude in dental MCQs for medically compromised patients.Journal of translational medicine · 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 in the study of oral lichen planus characteristics: a review.BDJ open · 2025Review
- Quantifying the speed-accuracy trade-off of large language models on oral and maxillofacial surgery multiple-choice questions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Accuracy and reliability of Manus, ChatGPT, and Claude in case-based dental diagnosis.Frontiers in oral health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have gained popularity among dental students for generating subject-related answers. However, their widespread use raises significant concerns about misinformation. This systematic review aims to critically evaluate studies assessing the performance of LLMs in dentistry. A comprehensive electronic search was conducted in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Saudi Digital Library to identify studies published up to September 2024. The study quality was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). A total of 2030 studies have been identified. After removing 907 duplicate records, 1123 studies remained for screening. Ultimately, 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. Approximately half of these studies were classified as "high risk," while the remainder were classified as "low risk." The applicability of the findings was rated as "low concern." The primary limitations of LLMs include their inability to specify information sources and their tendency to generate fabricated citations. Based on this review, LLMs hold promise as supplementary educational tools in dentistry. Evidence indicates that students using LLMs may achieve improved academic performance compared to traditional methods. However, concerns about occasional inaccuracies and unreliable citations underscore the need for further research, integration with validated sources, and adherence to ethical guidelines. Ultimately, LLMs should be viewed as complementary tools within dental education, with careful consideration of their limitations.
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.