Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40974074›Full record

ArticleJournal of dental education2026

The Ethical Boundaries of Chairside Generative Artificial Intelligence in Dental Education.

Sonal Anand, Ram Vaderhobli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of dental education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Sonal AnandUCSF School of Dentistry, San Francisco, California, USA.
Ram VaderhobliDepartment of Preventive and Restorative Dental Sciences, UCSF School of Dentistry, San Francisco, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In dental school clinics, students are increasingly using Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools like ChatGPT during patient care. This chairside, or point of care, use raises ethical concerns, particularly around supervision, patient safety, and training quality. This paper argues that GenAI can be ethically used in dental education if implemented with transparency, structured oversight, and robust ethics training. Using a utilitarian framework, the paper explores how GenAI can maximize benefits, such as consistency and efficiency, while minimizing harm when used appropriately. It emphasizes that faculty must guide students in GenAI use, and that patients should have the opportunity to provide informed consent when GenAI influences care. Responsibly incorporating GenAI in dental school clinics should prepare students to become competent, ethical clinicians in a technology-integrated healthcare system.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEducation, DentalEthics, DentalGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansdental educationethicsGenerative Artificial Intelligence

Identifiers

PMID40974074
PMCPMC13174903

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.