ArticleJournal of medicine and life2025
Attitudes of dentists and patients towards the introduction of artificial intelligence in dentistry.
Article in Journal of medicine and life, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trust in Artificial Intelligence-Generated Oral Health Information and Its Influence on Patient Decision-Making: A Cross-Sectional Study.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2026Article
- Can AI chatbots be reliable in dental emergencies? quality assessment of Arabic responses to dental emergency inquiries and public attitudes toward their use.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Dentists', dental students' and patients' knowledge, attitudes and practices on artificial intelligence: a scoping review.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Comparative assessment of AI-generated responses to frequently asked questions by parents on space maintainers in pediatric dentistry.BMC oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the attitudes of dental professionals and patients regarding the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in dental practice. A survey was conducted among dentists, dental students, and patients to assess their trust in AI-generated diagnoses-whether partially or entirely AI-based-and in the direct involvement of AI in treatment. The collected data were statistically processed and analyzed. While approximately 45% of participants across all groups supported the use of AI software for data collection and analysis, most agreed that final diagnostic decisions should remain the dentist's responsibility. Confidence in fully AI-generated diagnoses was low, with only 3.8% of dentists, 10.4% of students, and 10.8% of patients expressing trust in such outcomes. Similarly, the level of trust in dental treatment performed by a computer-controlled dental machine was unsatisfactory. A significant difference was observed in preferences for direct dental care: 66.5% of patients favored it, compared to 79.9% of students and 77.4% of practicing dentists. This discrepancy may be attributed to concerns that AI could substantially reduce the clinical involvement of dentists and students, whereas patients fear that relying solely on AI could compromise the personalized aspect of care, requiring them to entrust their treatment entirely to machines. Hybrid solutions are models that synchronize the analytical capabilities of a dental practitioner with the data inferred by AI. The study found that doctors and patients have positive attitudes towards the introduction of AI as an auxiliary tool. Dental practices should invest in software and technological equipment that enable a new level of dental diagnosis with the aid of AI.
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.