ArticleJADA foundational science2025
Comparing dentist and chatbot answers to dental questions for quality and empathy.
Article in JADA foundational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-informed healthcare pedagogy: a review of the literature and application to pedagogical practice informed by case studies from dental education.British dental journal · 2026Review
- Comparison of artificial intelligence-based chatbots and expert periodontists in responding to patient questions: a multi-dimensional analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of ChatGPT's ability to detect intraosseous pathologies with panoramic radiographs.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Evaluating artificial intelligence large language models in dental education: a cross-sectional survey on usage, perceptions, and integration at a U.S. dental school.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Exploring artificial intelligence chatbots in pediatric fluoride education: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrection.2025
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Integration of large language models (LLMs) into health care, particularly in patient communication, is a growing trend. This study evaluated the effectiveness of LLM chatbots in addressing dental patient queries compared with responses from human dentists on a public online forum. Methods: In January 2024, 20 patient questions and responses were randomly sampled from Reddit's dental advice community. We assessed the quality and empathy of ChatGPT-generated responses (Version GPT-3.5, OpenAI) by 9 blinded dentists. The dentists were selected from a dental faculty pool familiar with reading and assessing written communication. The evaluators rated the information quality of the responses on a Likert scale (very poor, 1; poor, 2; acceptable, 3; good, 4; very good, 5) and empathy (not empathetic, 1; slightly empathetic, 2; moderately empathetic, 3; empathetic, 4; very empathetic, 5). Subsequently, they selected the best response (dentist or artificial intelligence). Nine blinded dentists rated 20 responses to the online inquiries, providing 180 potential responses. Results: The results indicated that the LLM chatbots' responses were rated as higher quality and exhibited higher levels of empathy than human responses. Among 179 responses (1 was missing) to the question about whether the response was better from ChatGPT or the dentist, 167 (93.3%) responses indicated ChatGPT and 12 (6.7%) indicated dentist ( Conclusions: Although subjective variations in assessing quality and empathy may exist, this study suggests that LLM chatbot responses show higher quality and empathy than online dentist responses. The use of LLM chatbots by dentists can enhance patient communication in dental practice owing to their efficiency, empathy, and quality. Further research is needed to determine the full potential of artificial intelligence in dentistry.
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.