ArticleBMC oral health2025
Assessing ChatGPT's suitability in responding to the public's inquires on the effects of smoking on oral health.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of artificial intelligence-based chatbots and expert periodontists in responding to patient questions: a multi-dimensional analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- A cross-sectional evaluation of large language model chatbot interfaces for patient-facing herpes zoster information: safety, information quality, and readability.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Feasibility of a multi-metric framework for evaluating patient-facing AI communication in cosmetic dentistry: an exploratory proof-of-concept study.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Assessing the suitability of ChatGPT in responding to public inquiries about dental crown restorations.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- The evaluation of tooth whitening from a perspective of artificial intelligence: a comparative analytical study.Frontiers in digital 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the growing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare, language models like ChatGPT are increasingly being used to provide health information. Given smoking's significant impact on oral health, including periodontal disease, tooth loss, oral cancer, and impaired healing-this study assesses ChatGPT's effectiveness in answering inquiries about the effects of smoking on oral health.
methodsA total of 119 smoking-related dental health questions were generated using online tools and categorized into five domains: periodontal conditions, teeth and health, oral hygiene and breath, oral soft tissues, and oral surgery. ChatGPT 3.5 responses were evaluated for usefulness, readability (FKG index and, SMOG index), quality (Global Quality Scale), reliability (CLEAR tool), and understandability/actionability (PEMAT). Statistical analyses included ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, and Spearman correlation tests using SPSS v20.
resultsChatGPT responses were rated as "very useful" (36.1%) or "useful" (42.0%) for most questions. The oral hygiene and breath category received the highest usefulness scores (p =.002). Readability scores indicated that 35.3% of responses were very difficult to read. Surgery-related questions were significantly harder to read (p <.001). The overall quality and reliability of responses was moderate to good. Although understandability was generally high, actionability was limited, with only 23.5% of responses achieving high actionability (> 70%).
conclusionChatGPT provides reliable, high-quality information on smoking's impact on oral health, suitable for general health education. However, it lacks actionable, personalized guidance, limiting its effectiveness in supporting behavioral change and health management.
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.