ArticleDental press journal of orthodontics2025
Assessment of the information quality of chatbot technologies on orthodontic miniscrews.
Article in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 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
introductionIn this era of artificial intelligence, the increasing competition has significantly enhanced the power of AI chatbots, which have been integrated into various fields, including orthodontics. They can be a good option for enlightening topics of curiosity before or during treatment, as they are easily accessible by patients. However, their reliability remains a concern. Miniscrews, or Temporary Anchorage Devices (TADs), frequently used during orthodontic treatments, are among the subjects of interest to patients.
objectiveThis study aimed to comparatively evaluate the responses provided by four Large Language Models (LLMs), namely ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4 (OpenAI), Google Bard (Google LLC), and Bing Chat (Microsoft Corp), to questions asked by patients in the field of orthodontic miniscrews. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe most frequently asked questions by patients about miniscrews used in orthodontics were searched on Google. The first 50 pages were reviewed, and 30 questions were selected and asked to the LLM. The responses from the LLMs were evaluated using a five point modified scale and modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) by three orthodontic residents.
resultsIt was observed that the highest score for Likert belonged to GPT-4 (3.84), while the lowest was for Bing Chat (3.37). Statistically significant differences were found between the median score values given to the questions by all three researchers, depending on the LLMs used (p = 0.016; p<0.001 and 0.017, respectively). Significant differences were found between the scores given by Investigator 1 and Investigator 3 to ChatGPT-4 and Google Bard and the scores given to Bing Chat. Additionally, Investigator 2 showed significant differences in the scores given to Bing Chat compared to ChatGPT-3.5 (p=0.018). Among the evaluated chatbots, ChatGPT-4 achieved the highest mDISCERN score (23.43 ± 2.89), followed by Google Bard (23.47 ± 3.2), ChatGPT-3.5 (22.62 ± 2.97), and Bing Chat (21.63 ± 2.43).
conclusionsIn this study, it was found that LLMs can generally inform patients about miniscrews used in orthodontics and have promising potential. However, it is necessary that the information provided by these programs should always be supported by the information given by professionals.
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.