ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2026
Orthodontic knowledge assessment: A comparison of five AI Chatbots.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the Diagnostic Performance of ChatGPT-5.0 versus Machine Learning in Orthodontics: A Comparative Analysis for Extraction Treatment Planning.Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Accuracy and Short-Term Consistency of Generative AI Chatbots in Guideline-Based Endodontic Decision Support: A Multi-Model Benchmarking Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Patient-Facing AI Chatbot Treatment-Direction Advice in Orthodontic Health Communication: A Scenario-Based Comparison with Expert Consensus.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the performance and efficacy of five AI chatbots in providing orthodontic information. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study included 80 multiple choice questions (MCQs) sourced from orthodontic exam materials based on renowned orthodontics textbooks. The accuracy of five AI chatbots (ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Gemini, MedgebraGPT and Meta AI) was assessed based on their ability to answer correct answers and was compared with the response for the same questions by the dental students. The item-difficulty index score was also calculated for the AI responses. Both dependent and independent MCQs were assessed separately for student and AI bot performance.
resultsAmong all the chatbots, DeepSeek and Medgebra GPT provided the highest and lowest proportion of correct answers respectively, in both the rounds. The performance of Gemini [(Mc Nemar p = 0.64, kappa = 0.46, (p < 0.001)] and DeepSeek [(Mc Nemar p = 1.00, kappa = 0.74 (p < 0.001)] improved in the second round with a moderate and substantial level of agreement respectively. While, the performance of ChatGPT and Meta AI did not improve in the second round. An inter-rater reliability between item difficulty index based on Students and AI performance showed slight level of agreement (weighted kappa = 0.160), but the level of agreement between them was not statistically significant (p = 0.064).
conclusionDeepSeek provided highest fraction of correct answers in orthodontics, while Medgebra GPT provided the least. Although, these chatbots shared some common understanding of orthodontics, their performance varied and further refinement might be necessary to improve their consistency and accuracy in providing reliable answers.
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.