ArticleDental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology2026
Comparison of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots and Dental Students on Context of Dental Trauma.
Article in Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- New Frontiers in Dental Traumatology: Innovation, Prevention, and Clinical Practice.Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology · 2026Article
- ChatGPT in Pediatric Dental Trauma: A Cross-Sectional Assessment of Response Reliability to Parental Queries.Cureus · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimDaily use of chatbots has become widespread in dental education just as in every other field. Dental students consult them when performing tasks and studying for exams. This study aims to test comprehension abilities and knowledge of 5 different chatbots (Gemini 1.5/1.5Pro, ChatGPT 4.0/4.0o, and Deepseek) and compare them with students' at the topic of dental trauma. METHODOLOGY: The questionnaire is designed as 25 multiple-choice questions according to International Association of Dental Traumatology guideline and it's divided to three groups as 'indication and description', 'intervention and treatment' and 'splint and follow up times'. The prepared questions in the survey were asked to five different chatbots (Gemini 1.5/1.5Pro, ChatGPT 4.0/4.0o and Deepseek) and 4th/5th (n = 134) year dental students. The accuracy percentages were calculated by the answers of the students and chatbots. While examining Skewness and Kurtosis test for data distribution, ANOVA test was used to assess the differences between the participant.
resultsAfter achievement test adjustments the highest mark of total questionnaire is received by the 5th graders (69.96%) and it's followed by the ChatGPT 4.0 and Gemini 1.5 Pro (68.75%) with the same score. Other chatbots couldn't be successful to reach out the level of knowledge of 5th or 4th graders (65.85%).
conclusionsThe speed and efficiency of artificial intelligence bots in providing information are undeniable. However, as the results of this study indicate that all the information they provide is not accurate, it is important to examine the sources of these responses and verify the information with multiple references.
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.