ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2026
Performance of large language models in providing patient- oriented information on gingival recession: a comparative study.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients are increasingly turning to large language models (LLMs) for health information, but the quality of patient-oriented information remains uncertain. This article evaluated the performance of three major LLMs in answering clinically relevant patient's questions related to gingival recession. A descriptive comparative study was carried out utilizing twenty standardized patient-centered questions related to gingival recession. Each question was submitted once to ChatGPT 5.5, Gemini 3.5, and Claude Sonnet 5, generating 60 responses. Five board-certified periodontists independently evaluated the responses using the validated Accuracy of Information (AOI) Index, a completeness scale, and expert preference rankings. Word count and response generation time were also recorded. Non-parametric tests and generalized estimating equations (GEE) were applied for statistical analysis, with statistical significance set at p ≤ 0.05. No significant differences were found among the three LLMs in accuracy (p = 0.993) or completeness (p = 0.972). ChatGPT generated responses significantly faster (median: 5.82 s) and with fewer words (median: 232) than Gemini (8.46 s; 438 words) and Claude (14.61 s; 333.5 words) (both p < 0.001). Expert preference rankings differed significantly (p = 0.002): Gemini and Claude were each ranked first in 38% of evaluations, compared with 24% for ChatGPT. For all three models, the highest accuracy was observed in Post-treatment Care. The three LLMs offered broadly comparable levels of accuracy and completeness when answering patient-oriented questions with respect to gingival recession. ChatGPT was faster and more concise, while Gemini and Claude were more often preferred by the expert evaluators. These LLMs may be useful as adjuncts to patient education, but they should complement rather than replace professional periodontal consultation.
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.