ArticleCureus2025
Exploring the Ethical Landscape of Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry: Insights From a Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fuzzy Logic and Fuzzy-Based Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Image Resolution's Impact on Artificial Intelligence & Human Accuracy in Full-Mouth Radiographic Analysis.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Informed Consent in AI-Augmented Dentistry and Dental Research: A Scoping Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Review
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of oral and maxillofacial surgeons towards the use of artificial intelligence in clinical practice and training: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Article
- Developing a consent checklist for AI in dentistry: Thematic analysis and pilot survey validation.Digital healthArticle
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 The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) in dentistry offers exciting prospects, alongside notable ethical hurdles. As AI capabilities advance, it is essential to comprehend the implications for dental practices, patient well-being, and the dentist-patient connection. This study aims to explore the ethical considerations and challenges associated with the use of AI in dentistry. Methods A web-based survey was conducted among dentists to gain a deeper understanding of their thoughts, experiences, and concerns regarding the implementation of AI in dental practice. The survey explored various aspects such as the ethical implications of AI, its effects on the relationship between dentists and patients, and the significance of human supervision in AI-assisted decision-making. Results The results of the study underscore the intricate ethical considerations that must be taken into account when incorporating AI technology into dental care. Dental professionals conveyed a preference for AI to serve as a supplement to human expertise, rather than a replacement, underscoring the significance of retaining human oversight and direction. Various concerns were raised regarding the potential for AI to influence clinical judgments, the importance of transparency in AI algorithms, and the necessity of safeguarding patient information. Nevertheless, the participants acknowledged the potential benefits of AI in improving diagnostic precision, treatment planning, and administrative efficacy. Conclusion The utilization of AI in dentistry is undoubtedly advantageous, but its implementation must be handled with care and balance. To achieve this, it is crucial to adhere to ethical standards, maintain a continuous commitment to professional education, and prioritize the preservation of the dentist-patient relationship. AI should be viewed as a tool that complements the dentist's expertise, with human judgment remaining paramount in clinical decision-making.
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.