ArticleOdontology2026
Can chatbots replace experts? Diagnostic accuracy of AI models in classifying impacted mandibular third molars.
Article in Odontology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI)-based chatbots are increasingly employed in various fields of dentistry. However, their capability to interpret panoramic radiographs and classify impacted mandibular third molars has not yet been systematically evaluated. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of four widely used large language model-based chatbots in this context. A total of 93 impacted mandibular third molars were assessed using panoramic radiographs. Four chatbots-ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.0, and Copilot (GPT-4)-were asked to classify each case according to the Pell and Gregory, Winter, and Rood and Shehab systems without any additional guidance. Three experts then rated each chatbot response using a Global Quality Score. Inter-rater reliability and diagnostic agreement were analyzed. Inter-rater agreement was high among human evaluators (ICC: 0.886-0.935, p < 0.001). No significant difference was found in GQS ratings across the chatbots (p > 0.05), although ChatGPT-4o received the highest mean score (2.41 ± 1.03). ChatGPT-4o also performed significantly better in the Winter classification (κ = 0.171; p = 0.005). Gemini 2.5 Pro showed moderate agreement in root-related findings, whereas Copilot (GPT-4) showed more consistency in canal-related parameters (p < 0.05). No chatbot demonstrated acceptable agreement in the Pell and Gregory classification (p > 0.05). While AI-based chatbots showed potential for interpreting panoramic images, their current performance in third molar classification remains suboptimal at present. ChatGPT-4o outperformed other models in certain tasks, but none achieved expert-level accuracy. Further improvements, particularly with multimodal AI models and labeled datasets, are essential for future clinical integration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40996614What 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.