ArticleRestorative dentistry & endodontics2026
Diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT-5 in evaluating root canal treatment and periapical pathosis on periapical radiographs.
Article in Restorative dentistry & endodontics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots such as ChatGPT-5 (OpenAI) are increasingly used for dental radiograph interpretation, especially among patients seeking self-assessment. However, their diagnostic accuracy in endodontics remains unclear. Methods: This cross-sectional STARD-AI-compliant study analyzed 271 anonymized periapical radiographs of endodontically treated posterior teeth, classified as straightforward (n = 167) or complex (n = 104), using standardized ChatGPT-5 prompts. Diagnostic criteria included obturation length (short, adequate, long), presence of voids, and periapical pathosis. Results were compared to those of a panel of general dentists and a reference standard from endodontic specialists. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated using the McNemar test (p < 0.05). Results: ChatGPT-5 demonstrated high specificity (up to 99.3%) for normal or adequately treated findings but low sensitivity for short (13.7%) or long (0.0%) obturations, voids (9.0%-22.7%), and periapical lesions (10.5%-28.6%). Overall accuracy (54.0%-63.2%) was significantly lower than that of general dentists (76.0%-85.6%) (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Although ChatGPT-5 achieved high specificity, its low sensitivity and overall accuracy limit diagnostic reliability. Expert clinician oversight remains essential for accurate interpretation and treatment planning.
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.