Introduction: The emerging rise in novel computer technologies and automated data analytics has the potential to change the course of dental education. In line with our long‐term goal of harnessing the power of AI to augment didactic teaching, the objective of this study was to quantify and compare the accuracy of responses provided by ChatGPT (GPT‐4 and GPT‐3.5) and Google Gemini, the three primary large language models (LLMs), to human graduate students (control group) to the annual in‐service examination questions posed by the American Academy of Periodontology (AAP).Methods: Under a comparative cross‐sectional study design, a corpus of 1312 questions from the annual in‐service examination of AAP administered between 2020 and 2023 were presented to the LLMs. Their responses were analyzed using chi‐square tests, and the performance was juxtaposed to the scores of periodontal residents from corresponding years, as the human control group. Additionally, two sub‐analyses were performed: one on the performance of the LLMs on each section of the exam; and in answering the most difficult questions.Results: ChatGPT‐4 (total average: 79.57%) outperformed all human control groups as well as GPT‐3.5 and Google Gemini in all exam years (p < .001). This chatbot showed an accuracy range between 78.80% and 80.98% across the various exam years. Gemini consistently recorded superior performance with scores of 70.65% (p = .01), 73.29% (p = .02), 75.73% (p < .01), and 72.18% (p = .0008) for the exams from 2020 to 2023 compared to ChatGPT‐3.5, which achieved 62.5%, 68.24%, 69.83%, and 59.27% respectively. Google Gemini (72.86%) surpassed the average scores achieved by first‐ (63.48% ± 31.67) and second‐year residents (66.25% ± 31.61) when all exam years combined. However, it could not surpass that of third‐year residents (69.06% ± 30.45).Conclusions: Within the confines of this analysis, ChatGPT‐4 exhibited a robust capability in answering AAP in‐service exam questions in terms of accuracy and reliability while Gemini and ChatGPT‐3.5 showed a weaker performance. These findings underscore the potential of deploying LLMs as an educational tool in periodontics and oral implantology domains. However, the current limitations of these models such as inability to effectively process image‐based inquiries, the propensity for generating inconsistent responses to the same prompts, and achieving high (80% by GPT‐4) but not absolute accuracy rates should be considered. An objective comparison of their capability versus their capacity is required to further develop this field of study.

Introduction: Dental implants are widely employed as dependable replacements for lost teeth. However, it is crucial to establish, solely through prospective cohort studies, whether a history of periodontitis indeed constitutes a significant risk factor for implant failure.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in October 2022 in several electronic databases with subsequent manual updates. Only original prospective cohort studies evaluating the implant (loss) rate ≥1 year after implant loading were included. Logarithmic risk ratio and weighted mean differences were calculated. Study results were summarized using random effects meta‐analyses evaluated by trial sequential analyses. The Newcastle‐Ottawa scale evaluated study bias and the GRADE approach assessed the certainty/quality of the evidence.Results: A total of 14 publications reporting on 12 prospective cohort studies were included. Low evidence certainty/quality evidence due to the absence of randomized clinical trials revealed significantly greater odds of failure in patients with a history of periodontitis at follow‐ups both after ≤5 years (RR = 1.62; 95% CI: 1.71–2.37; p = 0.013) and >5 years (RR = 2.26; 95% CI: 1.12–4.53; p = 0.023). The incidence of peri‐implantitis (RR = 4.09; 95% CI: 1.93–8.58; p < 0.001) and the weighted mean (WM) of marginal bone loss (WM difference = 0.75 mm; 95% CI: 0.18–1.31; p < 0.05) were statistically significantly greater in the periodontally compromised group, whereas there was no significant difference between the two groups for peri‐implant probing depth.Conclusion: A history of periodontitis can be considered a significant risk factor for incident implant failure, peri‐implantitis, and greater marginal bone loss.

Periodontitis is the most common chronic, inflammatory oral disease that affects more than half of the population in the United States. The disease leads to destruction of the tooth-supporting tissue called periodontium, which ultimately results in tooth loss if uncured. The interaction between the periodontal microbiota and the host immune cells result in the induction of a non-protective host immune response that triggers host tissue destruction. Certain pathogens have been implicated periodontal disease formation that is triggered by a plethora of virulence factors. There is a collective evidence on the impact of periodontal disease progression on systemic health. Of particular interest, the role of the virulence factors of the periodontal pathogens in facilitating the evasion of the host immune cells and promotion of carcinogenesis has been the focus of many researchers. The aim of this review is to examine the influence of the periodontal pathogens Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (A. actinomycetemcomitans), Porphyromonas gingivalis (P. gingivalis), and Fusobacterium nucleatum (F. nucleatum) in the modulation of the intracellular signaling pathways of the host cells in order to evade the host immune response and interfere with normal host cell death and the role of their virulence factors in this regard.

Lateral ridge augmentation is a standard surgical procedure that can be performed prior to (staged) or simultaneously with implant placement. The decision between a simultaneous or staged approach involves considering multiple variables. This paper proposed a decision‐making process that serves as a guideline for choosing the best treatment choice based on the available evidence and the author's clinical experience.

Aim: To systematically identify, synthesize and critically summarize the available scientific evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding whether short (≤6 mm) perform as well as long (≥10 mm) implants regarding implant survival, marginal bone loss, and biologic and prosthetic complications in different clinical scenarios.Materials and Methods: Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and the GRADE approach were applied. Results were synthesized using random‐effects meta‐analyses assessed by trial sequential analyses.Results: Forty reports on 19 RCTs comprising 2214 (1097 short; 1117 long) implants were included. Moderate/high certainty/quality evidence demonstrated similar 5‐year survival rates for ≤6‐mm and ≥10‐mm implants in non‐augmented bone and full‐mouth rehabilitation in either jaw, and for 6‐mm implants in the maxilla instead of sinus lift. Nevertheless, the evidence for 5‐year survival rates remains inconclusive or insufficient for the remaining combinations of implant lengths and clinical scenarios. They include 4‐mm and 5‐mm implants as alternatives to sinus lift as well as placing all implant lengths ≤6 mm instead of vertical ridge augmentation with long implants. Marginal bone level and short‐ and long‐term biologic or prosthetic complications were similar.Conclusions: Based on moderate/high certainty/quality evidence from 5‐year RCTs, implants ≤6 mm may be viable alternatives to ≥10‐mm implants in either jaw in native bone and full‐arch rehabilitation, and 6‐mm implants may be used as an alternative to sinus lift. Trial registration: PROSPERO ID: CRD42021254365.