ArticleJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2025
Assessing the validity of ChatGPT-4o and Google Gemini Advanced when responding to frequently asked questions in endodontics.
Article in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Consistency and accuracy of different artificial intelligence models in evaluating longitudinal cracks and fractures of teeth.Odontology · 2026Article
- Accuracy and Temporal Consistency of ChatGPT and Gemini in Responding to Textbook and Patient-Oriented Dental Bleaching Questions: A Multi-Session Comparative Study.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Comparison of artificial intelligence-based chatbots and expert periodontists in responding to patient questions: a multi-dimensional analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Large language models and generative artificial intelligence in endodontics: a scoping review.Odontology · 2026Review
- Article
- Readability and Quality of Chatbot Responses to Periodontal Patient Queries: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Three Publicly Accessible Large Language Models.International journal of dentistry · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming access to dental information via large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini. Both models are increasingly being used in endodontics as a source of information for patients. Therefore, as developers release new versions, the validity of their responses must be continuously compared to professional consultations.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the validity of the responses provided by the most advanced LLMs [Google Gemini Advanced (GGA) and ChatGPT-4o] to frequently asked questions (FAQs) in endodontics. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional analytical study was conducted in five phases. The top 20 endodontic FAQs submitted by users to chatbots and collected from Google Trends were compiled. In total, nine academically certified endodontic specialists with educational roles scored GGA and ChatGPT-4o responses to the FAQs using a five-point Likert scale. Validity was determined using high (4.5-5) and low (≥4) thresholds. The Fisher's exact test was used for comparative analysis.
resultsAt the low threshold, both models obtained 95% validity (95% CI: 75.1%- 99.9%; p=.05). At the high threshold, ChatGPT-4o achieved 35% (95% CI: 15.4%- 59.2%) and GGA, 40% (95% CI: 19.1%- 63.9%) validity (p=1).
conclusionsChatGPT-4o and GGA responses showed high validity under lenient criteria that significantly decreased under stricter thresholds, limiting their reliability as a stand-alone source of information in endodontics. While AI chatbots show promise to improve patient education in endodontics, their validity limitations under rigorous evaluation highlight the need for careful professional monitoring.
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.