ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparative evaluation of the performance of different AI chatbots in answering pediatric dentistry questions in the Turkish dental specialization exam.
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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence-powered chatbots, whose use is becoming increasingly widespread, are frequently used in medicine and dentistry for tasks such as generating academic texts, student education, clinical diagnosis, and patient information. Given their inherent limitations, the accuracy of chatbot responses in the healthcare field is a crucial issue. Evaluating the performance of artificial intelligence in national examinations can provide objective data regarding its use as an educational support tool. This study aims to comparatively evaluate the performance of various artificial intelligence chatbots on questions from the pediatric dentistry section of the DUS (Dental Specialization Exam).
methodsA total of 127 questions asked in the DUS in the field of pediatric dentistry between 2012 and 2021 were included in the study. The questions were divided into nine subject-area categories, two exam years, and two question types: clinical case-based and theoretical knowledge-based. The ChatGPT-5, ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Claude Opus 4, and Claude Sonnet 4 models were evaluated in the study. Descriptive data are presented as numbers and percentages. Statistical analyses were performed using Cochran's Q test (p < 0.05); pairwise comparisons were made using the McNemar test and Bonferroni correction.
resultsGemini 2.5 Pro answered 93.7% of the questions correctly; ChatGPT-5 and Claude Opus 4 answered 88.9%, ChatGPT 4 and Gemini 2.5 Flash answered 87.4%, and Claude Sonnet 4 answered 83.4%. Gemini 2.5 Pro's performance in correctly answering questions was significantly higher than that of Claude Sonnet 4 (p = 0.001). No statistically significant differences were found in the chatbots' correct-answer performance when comparing by subject, year, and question type (clinical case and theoretical knowledge) (p > 0.05).
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that chatbots perform well at answering exam questions in pediatric dentistry and may serve aspromising supplementary educational tool.
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.