ArticleOral radiology2026
Artificial intelligence-assisted decision-making in third molar assessment using ChatGPT: is it really a valid tool?
Article in Oral radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectivesArtificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly popular in medicine. The current study aims to investigate whether an AI-based chatbot, such as ChatGPT, could be a valid tool for assisting in decision-making when assessing mandibular third molars before extractions.
methodsPanoramic radiographs were collected from a publicly available library. Mandibular third molars were assessed by position and depth. Two specialists evaluated each case regarding the need for CBCT referral, followed by introducing all cases to ChatGPT under a uniform script to decide the need for further CBCT radiographs. The process was performed first without any guidelines, Second, after introducing the guidelines presented by Rood et al. (1990), and third, with additional test cases. ChatGPT and a specialist's decision were compared and analyzed using Cohen's kappa test and the Cochrane-Mantel--Haenszel test to consider the effect of different tooth positions. All analyses were made under a 95% confidence level.
resultsThe study evaluated 184 molars. Without any guidelines, ChatGPT correlated with the specialist in 49% of cases, with no statistically significant agreement (kappa < 0.1), followed by 70% and 91% with moderate (kappa = 0.39) and near-perfect (kappa = 0.81) agreement, respectively, after the second and third rounds (p < 0.05). The high correlation between the specialist and the chatbot was preserved when analyzed by the different tooth locations and positions (p < 0.01).
conclusionChatGPT has shown the ability to analyze third molars prior to surgical interventions using accepted guidelines with substantial correlation to specialists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40542228What 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.