ArticleBMC oral health2026
Large language models in implant dentistry: a scoping review of applications, performance, and limitations.
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
Abstract
backgroundThis scoping review evaluates the current state of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in implant dentistry, focusing on the performance, clinical applications, and inherent limitations of large language models (LLMs) in both clinical and educational settings.
methodsA scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A comprehensive search across four electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase) was performed for literature published through December 2025. Eighteen eligible studies were analyzed to assess model architectures, specific task performance, and comparative proficiency against human experts.
resultsThe included studies, all published in 2024 or 2025, were classified as examining patient interaction (n = 9), medical knowledge (n = 7), or diagnostic assessment (n = 2). The analysis revealed a distinct evolution in performance with the advent of advanced reasoning models (e.g., ChatGPT-o1, DeepSeek-R1), which occasionally surpassed licensed dentists in certification examinations. Comparative assessments between medical-specific models and general-purpose LLMs yielded divergent outcomes, indicating that domain specialization does not inherently guarantee superior clinical accuracy against state-of-the-art generalist architectures. Nevertheless, reliability remains a concern; despite the integration of retrieval-augmented generation, hallucinations persist-especially in systematic search tasks-and the inability of text-based models to interpret diagnostic imaging continues to limit their clinical autonomy.
conclusionsAlthough generative AI has attained expert-level proficiency in theoretical knowledge retrieval, it currently serves best as an adjunctive support system, rather than a replacement for clinical judgment. Given the persistent risks of hallucination and the lack of visual processing capabilities, strict professional oversight is mandatory. Future research must prioritize the development of multimodal models and validate clinical outcomes through randomized trials.
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.