ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2026
Comparative Benchmark of Seven Large Language Models for Traumatic Dental Injury Knowledge.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry: A Systematic Review of Its Trust and Translation.International dental journal · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative benchmark assessment of performance of six different large language models in clinical decision-making for vital pulp therapy.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Generative Artificial Intelligence and Large Language Models in Paediatric Dentistry: A Scoping Review.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Performance of Enhanced Large Language Models on Prosthodontic Multiple-Choice Questions.International dental journal · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Traumatic dental injuries (TDIs) are complex clinical conditions that require timely and accurate decision-making. With the rise of large language models (LLMs), there is growing interest in their potential to support dental management. This study evaluated the accuracy and consistency of DeepSeek R1's responses across all categories of TDIs and benchmarked its performance against other common LLMs. Materials and Methods: DeepSeek R1 and six other LLMs, ChatGPT-4o mini, ChatGPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Claude 3 Opus, Gemini 1.5 Flash, and Gemini 1.5 Advanced, were assessed using a validated question set (125 items) covering five subtopics: general introduction, fractures, luxations, avulsions of permanent teeth, and TDIs in the primary dentition (25 items per group) with a specific prompt. Each model was tested with five repetitions for all items. Statistical Analysis: Accuracy was calculated as the percentage of correct responses, while consistency was measured using Fleiss' kappa analysis. Kruskal-Wallis H and Dunn's post-hoc test were applied for comparisons of three or more independent groups. Results: DeepSeek R1 achieved the highest overall score of 86.4% ± 2.5%, despite the most inconsistent responses (κ = 0.694), statistically higher than those of ChatGPT-4o mini (74.7% ± 0.9%), Claude 3 Opus (75.2% ± 1.0%), and Gemini 1.5 Flash (73.85% ± 2.3%) ( Conclusions: LLMs achieved moderate to high accuracy, yet this was tempered by varying degrees of inconsistency, particularly in the top-performing DeepSeek model. Difficulty with complex scenarios like luxation highlights current limitations in artificial intelligence (AI)'s diagnostic reasoning. AI should be viewed as a valuable dental educational and clinical adjunctive tool for knowledge acquisition and analysis, not a replacement for clinical expertise.
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.