ArticleBMC oral health2026
Can AI chatbots be reliable in dental emergencies? quality assessment of Arabic responses to dental emergency inquiries and public attitudes toward their use.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly penetrating health and dental fields without sufficient monitoring of its quality and applicability.
aimThis study aimed to evaluate public attitudes toward AI chatbots in dental emergencies and assess the quality of Arabic-language responses generated by different AI chatbots for dental emergency inquiries.
methodsThe study had two parts. Part one: A cross-sectional online survey where 441 Saudi residents aged ≥ 18 years answered a 33-item questionnaire in Arabic that included 14 items to measure attitudes about the use of AI chatbots in dental emergencies with a 5-point Likert scale. Part two: From participant answers and oral and maxillofacial surgeons, we selected 50 dental inquiries about dental emergencies and presented them in Arabic to five AI chatbots (ChatGPT-5.1, Google Gemini 3, Claude Sonnet 4.5, Grok 1.3.40, and DeepSeek 3.2). Responses were evaluated by two calibrated oral and maxillofacial surgeons using 5-point Likert scales for accuracy, clarity, comprehensiveness, relevance, and acceptability.
resultsParticipants showed moderately positive attitudes (2.72-3.89/5) about AI chatbots for dental emergencies. AI chatbots had generally high mean scores for accuracy (4.08-4.87), clarity (4.21-4.92), comprehensiveness (4.10-4.67), relevance (4.11-4.91), and acceptance (3.84-4.89). No significant differences were found among the AI chatbots, except Grok, which scored lower than the others on multiple quality measures (all p < 0.001). Inter-rater reliability varied across chatbots, single-measure ICC values ranging from 0.23 to 0.60; however, exact agreement was 69.8%, and 94.5% of paired ratings differed by no more than one point.
conclusionSaudi public attitudes toward AI chatbots in dental emergencies were moderate. Overall, the quality of Arabic AI chatbot responses was high, although Grok had significantly lower ratings. Human supervision remains essential, and continuous "living" evaluations are needed to track rapidly evolving chatbot performance.
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.