ArticleEuropean journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe2026
Comparison of Human and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Writing and Rating Restorative Dentistry Essays.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of Human and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Writing and Rating Restorative Dentistry Essays.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThis study compared the writing quality of AI- and student-authored essays, evaluated faculty members' reliability to differentiate between essays authored by AI and students, and assessed the scoring accuracy between human and AI raters using a standardised rubric.
methodsFour topics were selected from a preclinical operative and aesthetic dentistry course. Each topic was presented as four essays authored by two students and two AI tools (ChatGPT4 and Gemini) (N = 48). Then, the 16 essays were evaluated either by three blinded experts and two AI tool raters (ChatGPT4 and Gemini) using a modified Universal Science Writing Rubric. The Shapiro-Wilk W test assessed data normality. Kruskal-Wallis, Dunn's Pairwise, Wilcoxon Signed-rank, and Friedman tests analysed the writing performances and inter-rater reliabilities with a significance level of (α = 0.05).
resultsSignificant differences were found in evaluating scientific content (Z = 9.28, p = 0.005) and interpreting scientific content (Z = 6.74, p = 0.021) between AI- and student-authored essays. ChatGPT4-authored essays differed significantly in scientific content from both Gemini- and student-authored essays, with further differences in interpretation between ChatGPT4- and student-authored essays (p = 0.011). Faculty members correctly identified 75% of essay authors. No significant differences were found between raters using ChatGPT4 or Gemini, while a marginally significant difference was observed between human raters in the overall score, though not in specific parameters.
conclusionsGemini's scores closely matched those of human-authored essays, aligning more with human raters than ChatGPT-4. AI's capacity emulated human writing, though differences are noticeable to trained faculty members. There are evident disparities in content quality and organisation between AI- and human-authored work.
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.