Trial reportEvidence-based dentistry2026
Can artificial intelligence training improve clinical decision-making during deep caries excavation?
Trial report in Evidence-based dentistry, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
a commentary onRamezanzade S, Dascalu TL, Bakhshandeh A, Uribe SE, Ibragimov B, Bjørndal L. The impact of training dental students to use an artificial intelligence-based platform for pulp exposure prediction prior to deep caries excavation: a proof-of-concept randomized controlled trial. Int Endod J. 2026;59:1248-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.70046
designThis randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated whether a structured educational intervention could improve dental students' interaction with an artificial intelligence (AI)-based decision-support system developed to predict pulp exposure before excavation of deep carious lesions. CASE SELECTION: Eighteen dental students were randomly allocated to either an experimental group receiving a one-hour personalized training session on the use of the AI platform or a control group receiving a brief introductory video. Participants subsequently completed a case-based assessment involving radiographic evaluation of deep carious lesions and prediction of pulp exposure risk using the AI system. DATA ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was agreement with AI recommendations ("agreeableness with AI"). Secondary outcomes included diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F1-score, and response time. Outcomes were compared between groups, and the findings were used to estimate the sample size required for a future definitive trial.
resultsParticipants who received AI-focused training demonstrated greater agreement with AI recommendations than controls. However, improvements in agreement were not accompanied by meaningful differences in diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, or F1-score. Response times were slightly shorter among trained participants. The findings suggest that targeted instruction may influence how users interact with AI systems, although objective diagnostic performance remained largely unchanged.
conclusionsA short, personalized training session may increase dental students' agreement with AI-generated predictions of pulp exposure during deep caries excavation. However, the intervention did not substantially improve diagnostic performance, and no patient-centered outcomes were assessed. Larger studies are needed to determine whether AI training can enhance clinical decision-making and improve outcomes relevant to the management of deep carious lesions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42509482What 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.