ArticleBMC oral health2025
Assessing the suitability of ChatGPT in responding to public inquiries about dental crown restorations.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. 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.
- Cross-platform evaluation of LLM-generated educational texts on cardiac myxoma: quality, readability, and actionability using network analysis and latent profile analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to assess the effectiveness of ChatGPT as an informational tool for patients considering dental crown restorations.
methodsCommon patient inquiries about dental crown restorations were identified through online tools: Also Asked, Answer the Public, and Google's People Also Ask. The questions were categorized into three groups: Group 1 - functionality and appearance, Group 2 - material differences and cost, and Group 3 - longevity, shortcomings, and maintenance. ChatGPT 3.5 was used to generate responses to these questions. Responses were evaluated for usefulness; readability (FKG and SMOG indices); quality (Global Quality Scale); reliability (CLEAR tool); and understandability and actionability (PEMAT). Statistical analyses included ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, and Spearman correlation tests, performed using SPSS v20.
resultsA total of 126 patient questions about dental crown restorations were analyzed. Most ChatGPT responses were rated as 'very useful' (77%) or 'useful' (20.6%), with responses on longevity, shortcomings, and maintenance receiving the highest usefulness ratings. Readability analyses indicated that approximately 53% of responses were difficult to read overall, though responses on longevity and maintenance were easier to read. Quality and reliability were high across all responses, with mean GQS and CLEAR scores of 4.70/5 and 24.37/25, respectively. Understandability and actionability (PEMAT) scores varied, with responses on longevity and maintenance performing best.
conclusionOur results suggest that ChatGPT may serve as a supplementary tool in addressing patient inquiries about dental crown restorations. However, its responses require improvement in readability, actionability, and technical specificity. These findings indicate that while AI tools like ChatGPT can complement patient education, they cannot replace professional dental consultation and guidance.
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.