ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparison of two different artificial intelligence chatbots that provide information to patients and parents about primary tooth pulpotomy treatments.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the quality, reliability, readability, and originality of information provided by two AI-generated chatbots—ChatGPT-4.0 and Google Gemini Pro—regarding primary tooth pulpotomy, a common pediatric dental procedure.
methodsBased on the current AAPD guidelines and frequently asked parental inquiries, a total of 20 questions on primary tooth pulpotomy—10 theoretical and 10 clinical—were prepared. Each question was presented to the AI-generated chatbots (ChatGPT-4.0 and Google Gemini Pro) in a new conversation session without providing any guiding prompts. The responses were evaluated using standardized assessment criteria, including DISCERN, EQIP, GQS, FRES, FKRGL, and the iThenticate similarity index. Two experienced pediatric dentists independently assessed the answers after a calibration process to standardize scoring, and inter-rater reliability was confirmed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
resultsGemini Pro demonstrated higher reliability and quality scores (DISCERN and EQIP), while ChatGPT-4 produced responses with higher complexity, requiring university-level reading skills (FKRGL). No significant differences were observed in plagiarism or global quality scores (GQS). Gemini Pro’s responses were more readable, enhancing accessibility for broader audiences.
conclusionWhile both AI models generated informative and original content, Gemini Pro provided more reliable and accessible responses, making it a potentially valuable resource for patient and parent education. However, AI-generated information should not replace professional dental consultation. Future AI development should focus on improving source transparency, readability, and clinical relevance. AI-powered language models can be valuable resources for patient and parent education on primary tooth pulpotomy. Gemini Pro’s higher reliability and readability enhance accessibility, while ChatGPT-4’s responses require a higher level of education. These models have the potential to improve access to dental information.
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.