Kodonas K, et al. Restor Dent Endod. 2021 Jul;46:e40. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2021.46.e40

Kodonas K, et al. Restor Dent Endod. 2019 Nov;45:e17. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2020.45.e17

Katakidis A, et al. Restor Dent Endod. 2023 Nov;48:e41. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2023.48.e41

Aims and Objectives: This cross‐sectional study aims to compare the accuracy, precision and clarity of responses to dental implant questions from three artificial intelligence (AI) models: ChatGPT (OpenAI, GPT‐4), Gemini (Google) and MedGebra. Materials and Methods: 56 questions from an EAO patient guide were used and responses from each AI system were evaluated independently by two oral surgery specialists using a four‐point Likert scale for correctness, precision and clarity. Results: ChatGPT consistently scored highest especially in clarity with perfect marks from both evaluators. Gemini ranked lower in accuracy and precision but exhibited similar clarity. MedGebra received the lowest ratings on all criteria. Though consistency generally remained excellent, the inter‐rater reliability study revealed some variance in agreement levels between two examiners. Conclusion: ChatGPT and Gemini provided more accurate and informative responses on dental implants questions compared to MedGebra. According to the findings of the present study AI chatbots have potential for enhancing patient education on dental implants but professional oversight is crucial for ensuring accuracy and reliability. The study highlights the promising and potential benefits of large language models (LLMs) in dental patient education.

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of advanced platelet concentrates as regenerative endodontic therapeutic alternatives to blood clot (BC) revascularization in immature permanent necrotic teeth.Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing regenerative endodontic therapies using platelet-rich plasma (PRP), platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), or platelet pellet (PP) with the BC revascularization approach in immature permanent necrotic teeth were systematically searched in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science until May 2025. Data was extracted and analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A meta-analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS software (version 29.0), with success rates expressed as risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Results: The initial search yielded 4,917 studies. After removing duplicates and applying eligibility criteria, 15 RCTs were included. Meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in the risk ratio (RR), as the BC method has similar success rates with PRP (10 studies; RR = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.94–1.09; p = 0.76) and PRF (8 studies; RR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89–1.08; p = 0.65) at 12 months. The primary outcomes evaluated were based on clinical and radiographic success.Conclusions: Current evidence suggests PRP, PRF, and BC are all effective in treating immature permanent necrotic teeth with similar success rates. However, further research is needed to assess long-term outcomes.