Background: The increasing application of generative artificial intelligence large language models (LLMs) in various fields, including dentistry, raises questions about their accuracy. Objective: This study aims to comparatively evaluate the answers provided by 4 LLMs, namely Bard (Google LLC), ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 (OpenAI), and Bing Chat (Microsoft Corp), to clinically relevant questions from the field of dentistry. Methods: The LLMs were queried with 20 open-type, clinical dentistry–related questions from different disciplines, developed by the respective faculty of the School of Dentistry, European University Cyprus. The LLMs’ answers were graded 0 (minimum) to 10 (maximum) points against strong, traditionally collected scientific evidence, such as guidelines and consensus statements, using a rubric, as if they were examination questions posed to students, by 2 experienced faculty members. The scores were statistically compared to identify the best-performing model using the Friedman and Wilcoxon tests. Moreover, the evaluators were asked to provide a qualitative evaluation of the comprehensiveness, scientific accuracy, clarity, and relevance of the LLMs’ answers. Results: Overall, no statistically significant difference was detected between the scores given by the 2 evaluators; therefore, an average score was computed for every LLM. Although ChatGPT-4 statistically outperformed ChatGPT-3.5 (P=.008), Bing Chat (P=.049), and Bard (P=.045), all models occasionally exhibited inaccuracies, generality, outdated content, and a lack of source references. The evaluators noted instances where the LLMs delivered irrelevant information, vague answers, or information that was not fully accurate. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that although LLMs hold promising potential as an aid in the implementation of evidence-based dentistry, their current limitations can lead to potentially harmful health care decisions if not used judiciously. Therefore, these tools should not replace the dentist’s critical thinking and in-depth understanding of the subject matter. Further research, clinical validation, and model improvements are necessary for these tools to be fully integrated into dental practice. Dental practitioners must be aware of the limitations of LLMs, as their imprudent use could potentially impact patient care. Regulatory measures should be established to oversee the use of these evolving technologies.

Background: The recent artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT seems to offer a range of benefits in academic education while also raising concerns. Relevant literature encompasses issues of plagiarism and academic dishonesty, as well as pedagogy and educational affordances; yet, no real-life implementation of ChatGPT in the educational process has been reported to our knowledge so far. Objective: This mixed methods study aimed to evaluate the implementation of ChatGPT in the educational process, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Methods: In March 2023, a total of 77 second-year dental students of the European University Cyprus were divided into 2 groups and asked to compose a learning assignment on “Radiation Biology and Radiation Protection in the Dental Office,” working collaboratively in small subgroups, as part of the educational semester program of the Dentomaxillofacial Radiology module. Careful planning ensured a seamless integration of ChatGPT, addressing potential challenges. One group searched the internet for scientific resources to perform the task and the other group used ChatGPT for this purpose. Both groups developed a PowerPoint (Microsoft Corp) presentation based on their research and presented it in class. The ChatGPT group students additionally registered all interactions with the language model during the prompting process and evaluated the final outcome; they also answered an open-ended evaluation questionnaire, including questions on their learning experience. Finally, all students undertook a knowledge examination on the topic, and the grades between the 2 groups were compared statistically, whereas the free-text comments of the questionnaires were thematically analyzed. Results: Out of the 77 students, 39 were assigned to the ChatGPT group and 38 to the literature research group. Seventy students undertook the multiple choice question knowledge examination, and examination grades ranged from 5 to 10 on the 0-10 grading scale. The Mann-Whitney U test showed that students of the ChatGPT group performed significantly better (P=.045) than students of the literature research group. The evaluation questionnaires revealed the benefits (human-like interface, immediate response, and wide knowledge base), the limitations (need for rephrasing the prompts to get a relevant answer, general content, false citations, and incapability to provide images or videos), and the prospects (in education, clinical practice, continuing education, and research) of ChatGPT. Conclusions: Students using ChatGPT for their learning assignments performed significantly better in the knowledge examination than their fellow students who used the literature research methodology. Students adapted quickly to the technological environment of the language model, recognized its opportunities and limitations, and used it creatively and efficiently. Implications for practice: the study underscores the adaptability of students to technological innovations including ChatGPT and its potential to enhance educational outcomes. Educators should consider integrating ChatGPT into curriculum design; awareness programs are warranted to educate both students and educators about the limitations of ChatGPT, encouraging critical engagement and responsible use.

Summary: Background: The increasing utilization of large language models (LLMs) in Generative Artificial Intelligence across various medical and dental fields, and specifically orthodontics, raises questions about their accuracy. Objective: This study aimed to assess and compare the answers offered by four LLMs: Google’s Bard, OpenAI’s ChatGPT-3.5, and ChatGPT-4, and Microsoft’s Bing, in response to clinically relevant questions within the field of orthodontics. Materials and methods: Ten open-type clinical orthodontics-related questions were posed to the LLMs. The responses provided by the LLMs were assessed on a scale ranging from 0 (minimum) to 10 (maximum) points, benchmarked against robust scientific evidence, including consensus statements and systematic reviews, using a predefined rubric. After a 4-week interval from the initial evaluation, the answers were reevaluated to gauge intra-evaluator reliability. Statistical comparisons were conducted on the scores using Friedman’s and Wilcoxon’s tests to identify the model providing the answers with the most comprehensiveness, scientific accuracy, clarity, and relevance. Results: Overall, no statistically significant differences between the scores given by the two evaluators, on both scoring occasions, were detected, so an average score for every LLM was computed. The LLM answers scoring the highest, were those of Microsoft Bing Chat (average score = 7.1), followed by ChatGPT 4 (average score = 4.7), Google Bard (average score = 4.6), and finally ChatGPT 3.5 (average score 3.8). While Microsoft Bing Chat statistically outperformed ChatGPT-3.5 (P-value = 0.017) and Google Bard (P-value = 0.029), as well, and Chat GPT-4 outperformed Chat GPT-3.5 (P-value = 0.011), all models occasionally produced answers with a lack of comprehensiveness, scientific accuracy, clarity, and relevance. Limitations: The questions asked were indicative and did not cover the entire field of orthodontics. Conclusions: Language models (LLMs) show great potential in supporting evidence-based orthodontics. However, their current limitations pose a potential risk of making incorrect healthcare decisions if utilized without careful consideration. Consequently, these tools cannot serve as a substitute for the orthodontist’s essential critical thinking and comprehensive subject knowledge. For effective integration into practice, further research, clinical validation, and enhancements to the models are essential. Clinicians must be mindful of the limitations of LLMs, as their imprudent utilization could have adverse effects on patient care.

Background: The use of digital technology has exponentially increased over recent years. Intraoral scanners, especially, have gained traction within orthodontics. The objective of the present review is to investigate the available evidence to create an up-to-date presentation of various clinical aspects of intraoral scanners in orthodontics. Methods: Search without restrictions in seven databases (Pubmed, CENTRAL, Cochrane Reviews, Scopus, Web of Science, Clinical Trials, Proquest) since inception, and hand searching until October 2020, were conducted. Results: The majority of studies were either cross-over or parallel group studies. The accuracy and reproducibility of intraoral scanners, in comparison to conventional methods, were investigated in several studies, with controversial results. The duration of the procedure did not report any clear outcome in favor of any method. Patients seem to prefer intraoral scanning, even though numerous studies point out the importance of operators’ experience and skills. Conclusions: Despite the innovations that intraoral scanners have brought in orthodontic clinical practice, there are still some challenges and limitations in their use. The majority of existing limitations may be overcome with experience and good clinical skills. More high-quality studies need to be conducted so that clinicians can have a clear image of this new technology.

Objective: To synthesize currently existing data and investigate the prevalence of tooth transposition as well as its relation to gender, dental arch, and quadrant occurrence. Materials and Methods: Several electronic databases were searched in order to identify the potentially relevant studies. Initially, 591 papers were retrieved. After applying specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, nine studies were eligible for inclusion in this evaluation. Meta-analysis was performed by determining the event rate and the 95% confidence intervals estimated by the random effect model. Results: Analysis of the data of the primary studies revealed that tooth transposition has a mean prevalence of 0.33%. This prevalence seems to be the same between the two genders. However, tooth transposition appears more frequently in the maxilla than in the mandible and more unilaterally than bilaterally. Conclusion: Tooth transposition is a rare phenomenon that affects various populations, including across genders, in a similar manner. Some maxillary predisposition exists, and its unilateral occurrence is higher than that of bilateral.