ArticleBMC oral health2026
Evaluation of the approaches of different specialties and artificial intelligence systems on traumatic dental injuries.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the knowledge of three artificial intelligence (AI) systems and three dental specialist groups regarding the management of traumatic dental injuries (TDIs). METHODOLOGY: An online survey consisting of three sections was administered: (1) an information sheet with electronic informed consent, (2) five sociodemographic questions, and (3) thirty multiple-choice questions assessing TDI knowledge based on the International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) guidelines and current literature. The survey was distributed via e-mail to specialists in endodontics, pediatric dentistry, and oral and maxillofacial surgery through the Turkish Dental Association database. For the AI systems (ChatGPT-4o, Gemini Advanced, and DeepSeek-V3), the 30-item questionnaire was administered under a standardized prompt three times per day over 10 consecutive days, and all responses were recorded. Internal consistency and reliability were assessed using Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Statistical analyses were performed using one-way ANOVA and independent-samples t-tests (p < 0.05).
resultsA total of 95 specialists participated in the study (64 females, 31 males). Female participants demonstrated significantly higher correct-response rates than males. Participants classified as having very good knowledge achieved significantly higher scores than those with acceptable or low knowledge levels. No statistically significant differences were observed according to professional experience or workplace setting. Significant differences were found among specialist groups, with pediatric dentistry specialists achieving the highest correct-response rate. The overall mean accuracy among all specialists was 70.98% (SD = 15.6). AI systems performed as follows: ChatGPT-4o, 86% (SD = 3.2); Gemini Advanced, 79.33% (SD = 3.75); and DeepSeek-V3, 72.67% (SD = 4.32).
conclusionsAI systems demonstrated higher overall accuracy than human participants; however, certain items resulted in misleading responses, highlighting the importance of case-specific interpretation. AI tools may serve as supportive adjuncts in clinical decision-making, but further rigorously designed studies are required to clarify their optimal role and limitations in TDI management.
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.