Purpose: The use of large language models (LLMs) in generative artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly increasing in dentistry. However, their reliability is yet to be fully founded. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, clinical applicability, and patient education potential of LLMs in paediatric dentistry, by evaluating the responses of six LLMs: Google AI’s Gemini and Gemini Advanced, OpenAI’s ChatGPT-3.5, -4o and -4, and Microsoft’s Copilot. Methods: Ten open-type clinical questions, relevant to paediatric dentistry were posed to the LLMs. The responses were graded by two independent evaluators from 0 to 10 using a detailed rubric. After 4 weeks, answers were reevaluated to assess intra-evaluator reliability. Statistical comparisons used Friedman’s and Wilcoxon’s and Kruskal–Wallis tests to assess the model that provided the most comprehensive, accurate, explicit and relevant answers. Results: Variations of results were noted. Chat GPT 4 answers were scored as the best (average score 8.08), followed by the answers of Gemini Advanced (8.06), ChatGPT 4o (8.01), ChatGPT 3.5 (7.61), Gemini (7,32) and Copilot (5.41). Statistical analysis revealed that Chat GPT 4 outperformed all other LLMs, and the difference was statistically significant. Despite variations and different responses to the same queries, remarkable similarities were observed. Except for Copilot, all chatbots managed to achieve a score level above 6.5 on all queries. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the potential use of language models (LLMs) in supporting evidence-based paediatric dentistry. Nevertheless, they cannot be regarded as completely trustworthy. Dental professionals should critically use AI models as supportive tools and not as a substitute of overall scientific knowledge and critical thinking.

Natural rubber latex is found in numerous medical and dental products. Adverse latex reactions in dental patients and practitioners have significantly increased since the introduction of universal precautions for infection control. These reactions range from contact dermatitis to potentially life-threatening hypersensitivity. Patients with a history of spina bifida, urogenital anomalies, multiple surgical procedures, allergic reactions or atopy, health care personnel and latex production workers are at increased risk of latex allergy. Diagnosis is based on a combination of clinical history and laboratory tests. Identification of latex sources and the avoidance of latex exposure are critical for protecting both dental patients and dental personnel.

Background/Objectives: The main purpose of the present scoping review was to map and explore the efficacy of computer-controlled intraosseous anesthesia (CCIA) in comparison with conventional dental anesthesia in pediatric dental patients. Secondarily, this study aimed to compare the acceptance and preference factors between CCIA and conventional dental anesthesia in children. Given the limited and heterogeneous nature of the available literature, this review aimed to identify gaps and scope the extent of research conducted in this area, providing a foundation for future, more targeted studies. Methods: The search was conducted in 19 electronic databases, and the appropriate studies were identified according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Only split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trials that reported on the clinical outcomes of CCIA in children were included. Two reviewers worked independently on the screening and selection of the studies. The same two reviewers carried out the data extraction and the risk of bias assessment, using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Due to the exploratory nature, this review focused on mapping the characteristics, outcomes, and research trends rather than synthesizing effect sizes. Results: Out of 841 papers, 2 randomized clinical trials were ultimately included in the scoping review. The outcomes were categorized as primary (including results that answered the focus question) and secondary (relating to additional quality characteristics). Regarding the primary outcomes, in both studies, intraosseous anesthesia was efficacious in achieving the adequate level of anesthesia. One of the secondary outcomes was the acceptance and preference of CCIA in comparison with conventional dental anesthesia in children. The limited number and the high risk of bias in existing studies highlight the necessity for more comprehensive and high-quality research. Conclusions: The selected studies support the assertion that CCIA is a promising technique since it results in less pain perception and is preferred by patients compared to conventional local anesthesia. However, the existing literature is limited and at high risk of bias. Thus, further targeted investigations are needed to evaluate and yield more definitive results regarding the superiority of CCIA.