ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2026
Readability and Quality of Chatbot Responses to Periodontal Patient Queries: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Three Publicly Accessible Large Language Models.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Readability and Quality of Chatbot Responses to Periodontal Patient Queries: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Three Publicly Accessible Large Language Models.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The increasing use of large language models (LLMs) as sources of health information raises concerns regarding the quality and readability of patient-directed content. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the readability and quality of responses generated by three publicly accessible LLMs, ChatGPT-4o, Google Gemini 2.0 Flash, and DeepSeek-R1, to frequently asked patient questions related to periodontology. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 48 real-world periodontal questions were retrieved from Reddit and Quora and entered verbatim into each chatbot (February 2025, default settings). Readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). Quality and accuracy were evaluated using the Quality Analysis of Medical Artificial Intelligence (QAMAI) tool by three independent expert periodontists. Mean scores were compared using one-way ANOVA with Tukey post-hoc tests ( Results: FKGL differed significantly among models ( Conclusions: All evaluated LLMs produced responses with mean QAMAI scores at the lower end of the predefined good-quality range; however, their readability exceeded recommended standards for public health materials. While LLMs may serve as supplementary educational tools, language simplification strategies and continued professional oversight remain essential to ensure safe and accessible patient information.
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.