ArticleBMC oral health2026
Role-based evaluation of artificial intelligence chatbot responses in orthodontic emergency scenarios: accuracy, readability, understandability, and patient-oriented communication.
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
objectivesThis study investigated role-based differences in the accuracy, readability, understandability, and internal consistency of chatbot responses to orthodontic emergencies and examined the clinical implications of patient-oriented communication.
methodsTwenty-three standardized orthodontic emergency scenarios were presented to four chatbots- ChatGPT-4o, Claude 3 Opus, Microsoft Copilot, and Gemini 2.5-using patient and orthodontist roles. Response accuracy was evaluated by expert orthodontists and research assistants using a 3-point Likert scale, while readability, understandability, and internal consistency were assessed with the Atesman index, Sonmez formula, and Cronbach's α. Patient-role responses were descriptively analyzed using predefined communication dimensions to contextualize quantitative findings.
resultsSignificant chatbot-specific role-based differences were observed, with Claude 3 Opus (p = 0.001) and Gemini 2.5 (p = 0.023) showing higher accuracy in the orthodontist role. In the patient role, ChatGPT-4o and Claude 3 Opus showed the highest rates of correct information, while Claude 3 Opus had the highest rate in the orthodontist role. Patient-role responses were significantly more understandable than orthodontist-role responses (p < 0.05). ChatGPT-4o (α = 0.862) and Gemini 2.5 (α = 0.815) showed high internal consistency. Qualitative analysis indicated that patient-oriented responses frequently adopted a reassuring tone and emphasized temporary self-care strategies, potentially influencing perceived urgency in orthodontic emergencies.
conclusionsChatbot performance varied according to user role. Patient-oriented responses were more understandable despite similar readability across models and could influence perceptions of urgency and professional responsibility, highlighting the need for cautious framing of chatbot-generated information for orthodontic emergency guidance. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Chatbots can provide preliminary information in orthodontic emergencies; however, due to limitations in accuracy and consistency, they should be used only as supportive tools and should not replace professional clinical judgment.
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.