Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40836562›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe2026

Assessment of ChatGPT's Performance on the ACP 2024 National Prosthodontics Resident Exam (NPRE).

Abdulrahman Almalki, Ramzi O Althubaitiy, Fahad Alkhtani, Evanthia Anadioti, Heba Wageh Abozaed

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Assessment of ChatGPT's Performance on the ACP 2024 National Prosthodontics Resident Exam (NPRE).European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Abdulrahman AlmalkiDepartment of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Ramzi O AlthubaitiyDepartment of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Fahad AlkhtaniDepartment of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Evanthia AnadiotiDepartment of Restorative and Preventive Dentistry, School of Penn Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Heba Wageh AbozaedDepartment of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3216-7361

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the performance of ChatGPT on the National Prosthodontics Resident Exam (NPRE).

methodsTwo separate OpenAI accounts were used for ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4.0, each managed by independent examiners. The dataset was sourced from the American College of Prosthodontics (ACP) 2024 National Prosthodontics Resident Exam (NPRE), which includes 150 multiple-choice board-style questions on various prosthodontic topics. Questions were inputted as they appeared in the NPRE, and responses were recorded as correct or incorrect. Accuracy was assessed using a two-tailed t-test, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. After the study was completed, OpenAI accounts were deleted to ensure data privacy and security.

resultsChatGPT 3.5 correctly answered 84 out of 150 questions, achieving a score of 56.0%; while ChatGPT 4 significantly outperformed it with a score of 73.7%, correctly answering 109 out of 150 questions (p < 0.001). In specific subjects, ChatGPT 4 consistently scored higher, with significant improvements in Basic Science (71.2% vs. 61.3%), Implant Surgery (67.5% vs. 41.2%), Diagnosis and Treatment Planning (66.6% vs. 53.4%) and Fixed Prosthodontics (86.9% vs. 62.5%). The highest scores for both versions were in Dental Materials, with ChatGPT 4 achieving 91.6% compared to ChatGPT 3.5's 73.1%.

conclusionChatGPT 4.0 shows promising potential as an educational tool for prosthodontics residents by effectively addressing board-style questions. However, due to a significant presence of misinformation in ChatGPT's current prosthodontics knowledge base, residents should exercise caution and supplement AI-generated content with evidence-based information from credible sources to ensure accuracy and reliability.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementEducation, Dental, GraduateInternship and ResidencyProsthodonticsGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansLarge Language ModelsUnited Statesartificial intelligencechatGPTprosthodontics

Identifiers

PMID40836562
PMCPMC13383305

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.