ArticleJournal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists2026
Evaluation of artificial intelligence-based software programs applied to the radiographic and photographic identification of dental implant systems.
Article in Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 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
purposeThe purpose of this evaluation study was to assess the performance of ChatGPT-5, Google Gemini (v2.5), and Microsoft Copilot in identifying five demonstration dental implant systems and four implants from real clinical cases based on clinical and radiographic images. MATERIALS AND
methodsClinical photographs of the demonstration implant platforms and corresponding radiographs of NobelActive (NobelActive; Nobel Biocare), NobelParallel Conical Connection (NobelParallel CC; Nobel Biocare), NobelReplace Conical Connection (NobelReplace CC; Nobel Biocare), Straumann Bone Level Conical (Straumann BLC; Institut Straumann), and Straumann BLX (Straumann BLX; Institut Straumann), were entered into ChatGPT-5, Google Gemini (v2.5), and Microsoft Copilot with one standardized prompt. In addition, four previously placed implants from real patient cases (NobelActive, NobelReplace CC, Straumann Bone Level Tapered [BLT], and Straumann BLX) were analyzed using the same software programs and standardized prompt. All inputs were conducted in a clean session. All responses from ChatGPT-5, Gemini, and Copilot software programs were compared for accuracy and descriptive completeness.
resultsChatGPT-5 correctly identified two of the five demonstration implant systems, but did not definitively identify any of the four real clinical cases. Google Gemini failed to correctly identify any implant system in either the demonstration or clinical cases. Microsoft Copilot did not correctly identify the demonstration implants but correctly identified one of the four real clinical cases (Straumann BLX). Diagnostic overlap among tapered internal-connection systems was a common source of misclassification.
conclusionsNone of the evaluated artificial intelligence (AI) software programs consistently identified dental implant systems across both demonstration and real clinical cases. Although ChatGPT-5 showed partial diagnostic capability in demonstration implants and Microsoft Copilot correctly identified one real clinical case, overall system-level identification remained unreliable.
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.