ArticleFrontiers in oral health2026
Feasibility of a multi-metric framework for evaluating patient-facing AI communication in cosmetic dentistry: an exploratory proof-of-concept study.
Article in Frontiers in 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used by the public to obtain oral health information, yet reproducible methods to benchmark the communication quality of patient-facing outputs remain underdeveloped. Prior evaluations have focused mainly on factual accuracy and guideline concordance, while giving less attention to whether responses are understandable, actionable, empathetic, well structured, and bounded by appropriate safety messaging. This gap is especially relevant in cosmetic dentistry, where patients often make elective and potentially irreversible decisions based on online information. Methods: This proof-of-concept comparative benchmarking study used a consolidated 80-prompt test set derived from thematic analysis of real-world patient inquiries and cross-LLM synthesis across four cosmetic dentistry domains: tooth whitening, veneers, implants, and orthodontic aligners. Responses from an instruction-configured assistant (CSA-GPT) and a general-purpose baseline (ChatGPT5.2) were generated under controlled conditions, yielding 160 responses. Two board-certified specialists independently evaluated all responses using a theory-informed, exploratory 20-point rubric assessing readability (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, FKGL), ethical disclaimer inclusion, practicality, empathetic tone, and structural clarity. A separate clinical safety audit assessed major factual errors and critical omissions. Between-model comparisons used paired analyses with effect sizes, and linear mixed-effects models examined Model, Domain, and Model × Domain interaction. Results: CSA-GPT outperformed ChatGPT5.2 across all evaluated communication metrics. Mean total rubric score was 17.95 ± 1.62 for CSA-GPT vs. 9.55 ± 1.94 for ChatGPT5.2 ( Conclusions: In this exploratory proof-of-concept study, instruction configuration improved the patient-facing communication quality of LLM responses in cosmetic dentistry across readability, practicality, empathetic tone, structural clarity, and safety boundary-setting, without increasing major factual errors. These findings support the feasibility of a multi-metric benchmarking approach for evaluating patient-facing dental AI, while highlighting the need for psychometric refinement, external validation, and broader testing before such approaches can inform governance or implementation.
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.