Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly considered in dentistry, yet their accuracy in orthodontic radiology remains uncertain. This study evaluated the performance of ChatGPT-4 on questions aligned with current radiology guidelines. Methods: Fifty short, guideline-anchored questions were authored; thirty were pre-selected a priori for their diagnostic relevance. Using the ChatGPT-4 web interface in March 2025, we obtained 30 answers per item (900 in total) across two user accounts and three times of day, each in a new chat with a standardised prompt. Two blinded experts graded all responses on a 3-point scale (0 = incorrect, 1 = partially correct, 2 = correct); disagreements were adjudicated. The primary outcome was strict accuracy (proportion of answers graded 2). Secondary outcomes were partial-credit performance (mean 0–2 score) and inter-rater agreement using multiple coefficients. Results: Strict accuracy was 34.1% (95% CI 31.0–37.2), with wide item-level variability (0–100%). The mean partial-credit score was 1.09/2.00 (median 1.02; IQR 0.53–1.83). Inter-rater agreement was high (percent agreement: 0.938, with coefficients indicating substantial to almost-perfect reliability). Conclusions: In the conditions of this study, ChatGPT-4 demonstrated limited strict accuracy yet substantial reliability in expert grading when applied to orthodontic radiology questions. These findings underline its potential as a complementary educational and decision-support resource while also highlight its present limitations. Its role should remain supportive and informative, never replacing the critical appraisal and professional judgement of the clinician.

Introduction: Tooth shade selection is a fundamental factor in the success of dental restorations, and visual impairment may adversely affect this process. The aim of this cross-sectional clinical study was to determine whether visual impairment influences shade selection using two methods: spectrophotometry and shade guides. Materials and Methods: The sample consisted of 2796 maxillary and mandibular teeth, and shade selection was measured subjectively with a shade guide (VITA Classic, VITA Zahnfabrik) and objectively with a spectrophotometer (VITA Easyshade^® V, VITA Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany). In all cases, three measurements were taken on each tooth, with a waiting time of 15 min between samples. Shade selection was compared between observers with normal vision, myopia, astigmatism, and hyperopia. Results: The results show that myopic subjects perceived the lower central incisors (2.63, p < 0.05), upper lateral incisors (2.42, p < 0.05), lower lateral incisors (2.34, p < 0.05), and lower canines (2.64, p < 0.05) more clearly. Non-astigmatic subjects perceived the lower second premolar as lighter than astigmatic subjects (−2.01, p < 0.05). Conclusions: It can be concluded that myopes see teeth more clearly, but no differences have been found in astigmatism and hyperopes.