Background/Objectives: Standard dental practice is being reshaped by digital technologies, and artificial intelligence (AI) is emerging as one of the most challenging recent innovations. Methods: The present study assessed the interest of Romanian dentists in the integration of AI into their current practice through an anonymous questionnaire distributed to 200 respondents. The questionnaire addressed the integration of AI in dentistry by analyzing the following areas of intervention: stages of patient care, perceived impact on the doctor–patient relationship, data security, implementation costs, and the legislative framework. Results: The results showed that 53.6% of dentists reported low difficulties, 37.3% reported moderate difficulties, and 9.1% reported high difficulties with using digital tools. Dentists’ reported willingness to adopt AI-based solutions was as follows: 58.6% were very willing, 30% were moderately willing, and only 11.4% were not very willing. Currently, 80.5% already use digital techniques in their daily practice. The participants emphasized the need to maintain a strong doctor–patient relationship while recognizing the benefits of increased efficiency. They were aware of the risk of diminishing human connection and trust. Also, data security and the financial stress associated with implementing and maintaining new systems were seen as major obstacles. Conclusions: The dentists surveyed showed an increased interest in modern digital technologies, provided that there is a clear legal framework, a strong data protection system, and the preservation of the doctor–patient relationship based on trust and confidentiality that defines the medical profession.

Background/Objectives: The digital transformation of dental practice is positioning artificial intelligence (AI) as a key tool for both clinical support and administrative optimization. While clinical uses of AI are well documented, there is limited evidence on managerial perspectives. This study explored how dental clinic managers view digital workflow transformation and AI implementation. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was conducted among 200 managers of dental clinics from urban and rural areas in Bucharest, Romania. The survey evaluated perceived difficulty and availability related to digitalization, current use of digital tools, demographic characteristics (age, professional experience, practice environment), and attitudinal dimensions reflecting digital pragmatism and efficiency versus human impac. Results: Managers demonstrated moderate digital pragmatism (median 2.84, IQR 2.29–3.44), embracing AI mainly when linked to efficiency, operational control, and economic sustainability. Lower perceived difficulty was associated with higher availability, current use of digital tools, younger age, and fewer years of managerial experience. Urban managers were more likely than rural managers to report higher availability and current use of digital tools, although this comparison should be interpreted cautiously given the small rural subgroup. Efficiency considerations outweighed human-impact concerns (median 3.9, IQR 3.46–4.2), yet caution persisted toward solutions requiring major organizational restructuring or potentially affecting clinician–patient interaction. This study is a pilot, exploratory investigation aimed at generating preliminary insights into the phenomenon of interest and refining the methodological approach and hypotheses for subsequent, larger-scale research. Conclusions: Dental clinic managers approach AI adoption through an efficiency-driven and risk-aware framework, favoring incremental digital integration over disruptive transformation. The results underline the need for context-sensitive implementation strategies, managerial training, and targeted support, to ensure that AI-enhanced workflows improve efficiency while preserving organizational stability and patient-centered care.

Background/Objectives: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital technologies into dental practice is reshaping clinical workflows, administrative processes, and, increasingly, the patient experience and the doctor–patient relationship. While prior research has documented the attitudes of clinicians and practice managers, the perspective of the patient remains comparatively underexplored. This study examined how dental patients perceive AI integration and digital tools across the dental care pathway, together with the associated implications for data security, cost, and the human dimension of care. Methods: A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted among 200 dental patients in Bucharest, Romania, and the surrounding region. The instrument assessed perceived difficulty and availability regarding digital technology, current use of digital tools, demographic and educational characteristics (age, gender, practice environment, educational level), and two attitudinal dimensions, namely digital prudence and concern for technological sustainability, across five subdomains of the dental care pathway: scheduling, diagnosis, treatment planning, feedback, and follow-up (dispensarization). Responses were analyzed using non-parametric tests and exploratory principal component analysis with internal-consistency validation. Results: Patients expressed moderate-to-high interest in AI support during the diagnostic (median = 3.3, IQR = 2.7–3.9) and feedback (median = 3.11, IQR = 2.78–3.67) stages and the lowest interest in scheduling (median = 2.7, IQR = 2.0–3.3). A marked level of digital prudence was observed (median = 3.24, IQR = 2.82–3.61), reflecting concerns about data security, automation, and a possible weakening of the clinician–patient bond. Younger and academically educated patients reported lower perceived difficulty, higher availability, and greater current use of digital tools (all p ≤ 0.001); counterintuitively, the same patients scored significantly higher on digital prudence (Spearman’s ρ = −0.260, p < 0.001). Greater familiarity with digital tools was therefore accompanied by a more critical awareness of their informational risks rather than by uncritical acceptance. Conclusions: Dental patients approach AI through a dual lens of openness and informed caution, welcoming efficiency gains in the clinical and continuity-of-care stages while voicing measured concerns about data security, affordability, and the preservation of human contact. To interpret this profile, we propose two conceptual contributions: a mapping of patient needs onto Maslow’s hierarchy in the context of AI-mediated care and the Informational VUCA framework, which characterizes the volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity that patients face when navigating AI-generated information. The findings point to a clear practical agenda of transparent communication, robust data governance, and education strategies adapted to patients’ educational and demographic profiles, so that AI-enhanced workflows strengthen rather than erode the doctor–patient relationship.