ArticleFrontiers in dental medicine2025
Perceptions of dental students on the integration of artificial intelligence in radiology clinical education.
Article in Frontiers in dental medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess dental students' perceptions of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology education, focusing on diagnostic value, curriculum preparedness, and faculty support. Methods: An anonymous survey was administered to third-year dental students ( Results: Most students reported that AI improved their ability to detect caries (89.4%) and enhanced radiographic interpretation (92.4%). However, only 16.7% agreed the curriculum adequately prepared them to use AI clinically, and just 45.5% felt confident about integrating AI into future practice. Open-ended feedback highlighted three themes: 1) need for structured faculty training, 2) earlier and more frequent AI exposure, and 3) emphasis on mitigating automation bias, or the over reliance on technology and automated systems in clinical judgement. Correlation analysis revealed strong associations between improved interpretation, skill development, and patient communication (r > 0.80), however, significant negative correlations emerged between student outcomes and perceptions of faculty preparedness. Conclusions: Students value AI as a diagnostic learning aid but identify gaps in curricular structure and faculty calibration. A structured, faculty-led AI curriculum introduced early in training and paired with patient communication strategies may optimize preparedness while safeguarding critical thinking.
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.