Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42437914›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2026

Bloom's taxonomy-based comparison of artificial intelligence and dental students in restorative dentistry.

Onur Akkurt, Ebru Yılmaz, Nilgün Akgül

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Onur AkkurtDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Pamukkale University, Denizli, 20160, Türkiye. oakkurt@pau.edu.tr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-2010-1632
Ebru YılmazDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Pamukkale University, Denizli, 20160, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8793-3273
Nilgün AkgülDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Pamukkale University, Denizli, 20160, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6732-0485

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study is to compare the performance of three large language models (ChatGPT 5, Microsoft Copilot, and Google Gemini 3), with that of dental students using their responses to multiple-choice questions (MCQs) in restorative dentistry. Accuracy of responses were analyzed across the knowledge and cognitive process dimensions of the revised Bloom's taxonomy (RBT), as well as across subject areas.

methodsThe restorative dentistry exam questions used in this study were drawn from Turkish Dentistry Specialization Entrance Exam (DUS) administered between 2020 and 2025. The 90 five-option, single-best-answer MCQs were classified according to the RBT to ensure cognitive diversity. Following the exclusion of one exam question which had been annulled by the examination authority, the data analysis was performed on the remaining 89 exam questions. Accuracy of AI models and dental students was compared using Pearson's chi-square test and Monte Carlo-corrected Fisher's exact test. Pairwise comparisons were carried out via Bonferroni-corrected Z-test. The results were presented as frequencies and percentages, and p < 0.050 was considered statistically significant.

resultsMicrosoft Copilot and Gemini 3 showed similar performance in answering MCQs, both models achieved higher accuracy than ChatGPT 5 and students (p < 0.001). ChatGPT 5's overall accuracy was found to be significantly higher than that of the students. Accuracy of responses varied according to Bloom's taxonomy levels and subject areas. Microsoft Copilot exhibited over 90% accuracy in all categories of Bloom's knowledge and cognitive process dimensions. At the application level of the cognitive process dimension, all chatbots descriptively achieved 100% accuracy; however, this subgroup difference did not reach statistical significance. Chatbot performance was generally superior to that of students across the subject areas of adhesive dentistry, dentin hypersensitivity, dental caries, tooth whitening, aesthetic restorative procedures, contemporary restorative materials, preventive dentistry, lasers, and saliva.

conclusionAI-based chatbots demonstrate considerable potential in answering questions about restorative dentistry. At the same time, the differences in performance observed among different models suggest there could be variation in the accuracy values of these systems depending on both the taxonomic level and the subject area of restorative dentistry. The findings support the potential use of chatbots as complementary learning resources in dental education. However, the reliability of such systems should be consistently verified and tested in both an academic and clinical setting under the direct supervision of experts. Moreover, students should be equipped with critical thinking skills to appropriately evaluate and use these systems.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDental Restoration, PermanentDentistry, OperativeEducational MeasurementEducation, DentalStudents, DentalGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansLarge Language ModelsTurkeyArtificial intelligenceBloom’s taxonomyChatGPTDental educationGoogle GeminiMicrosoft CopilotRestorative dentistry

Identifiers

PMID42437914
PMCPMC13644128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.