ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparative assessment of AI-generated responses to frequently asked questions by parents on space maintainers in pediatric dentistry.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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.
- Performance of artificial intelligence chatbots in providing feeding management and oral health guidance for children with cleft lip and palate: ChatGPT 5.2 vs Gemini 3 Pro.European journal of pediatrics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI)–based chatbots are increasingly being used in healthcare services for information access and patient education. However, in pediatric dentistry, evidence regarding the accuracy, reliability, and clinical validity of these systems is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the responses of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-5, Google Gemini 2.5 Flash, DeepSeek-V3, and Grok 3 about space maintainers in terms of accuracy, reliability, quality, and readability.
methodsThe five chatbots were asked the 20 most frequently asked questions by parents about space maintainers. Responses were evaluated by two pediatric dentistry specialists for accuracy using a 5-point Likert scale, reliability using the Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information (DISCERN) scale, quality using the Global Quality Scale (GQS), and readability using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES). The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was used to assess agreement between the two specialists. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 26. The Kruskal–Wallis test was applied for Likert, GQS, and DISCERN scores, while one-way ANOVA with post-hoc tests was applied for FRES scores. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsIn this study, no statistically significant difference was found in Likert scores among ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-5, Google Gemini 2.5 Flash, DeepSeek-V3, and Grok 3 (p > 0.05). In contrast, a statistically significant difference was observed in DISCERN and GQS scores (p < 0.05). In terms of FRES scores, ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-5, and DeepSeek-V3 demonstrated higher readability, whereas Google Gemini 2.5 Flash and Grok 3 obtained lower scores.
conclusionAlthough AI-based chatbots showed comparable performance in terms of accuracy, they differed significantly in reliability, quality, and readability. These findings suggest that AI chatbots have the potential to provide parents with accurate and understandable information; however, model-specific differences in reliability and readability should be considered.
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.