Large language models (LLMs) have gained popularity among dental students for generating subject-related answers. However, their widespread use raises significant concerns about misinformation. This systematic review aims to critically evaluate studies assessing the performance of LLMs in dentistry. A comprehensive electronic search was conducted in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Saudi Digital Library to identify studies published up to September 2024. The study quality was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). A total of 2030 studies have been identified. After removing 907 duplicate records, 1123 studies remained for screening. Ultimately, 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. Approximately half of these studies were classified as "high risk," while the remainder were classified as "low risk." The applicability of the findings was rated as "low concern." The primary limitations of LLMs include their inability to specify information sources and their tendency to generate fabricated citations. Based on this review, LLMs hold promise as supplementary educational tools in dentistry. Evidence indicates that students using LLMs may achieve improved academic performance compared to traditional methods. However, concerns about occasional inaccuracies and unreliable citations underscore the need for further research, integration with validated sources, and adherence to ethical guidelines. Ultimately, LLMs should be viewed as complementary tools within dental education, with careful consideration of their limitations.

Background: Dependent adults have been shown to have a greater experience of oral health deterioration and orofacial pain. This is partly because their non-dental caregivers may not easily identify oral health problems and orofacial pain experienced by them. Thus, this systematic review aimed to investigate measurement properties, interpretability and feasibility of instruments assessing oral health and orofacial pain in dependent adults, which can be used by the non-dental caregivers to establish oral care plans for those who are dependent upon them. Methods: Seven bibliographic databases were searched: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, HTA, OATD and OpenGrey. Citations and reference lists of the included studies were also manually searched. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and then full texts. A quality assessment of included studies was conducted independently by two authors using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. The best evidence synthesis method was used to synthesise results from different studies for each measurement property per measurement instrument by integrating the overall rating for each measurement property per measurement instrument with its quality level of evidence. Results: Nineteen eligible studies were included, which reported the development, measurement properties’ evaluation, interpretability and feasibility of nine oral health and three orofacial pain measurement instruments. Methodological quality of the included studies ranged from very good to inadequate. None of the identified measurement instruments has been adequately and comprehensively tested. Conclusions: While several measurement instruments were identified in this systematic review, more evidence is needed to be able to more comprehensively evaluate these instruments. Among those identified, the OPS-NVI demonstrated sufficient construct validity, while the OHAT and the THROAT demonstrated sufficient reliability. These instruments therefore have potential for future use with more confidence once other measurement properties, interpretability and feasibility have been sufficiently tested and evaluated.

Background/Objectives: Despite clear benefits, conventional rubber dam use remains low due to barriers that often originate during undergraduate training. To examine a potential approach to mitigating these barriers, this study evaluated the efficacy and feasibility of OptraDam^® Plus, a user-friendly alternative to the conventional rubber dam, in preclinical simulation training. Methods: In this 2 × 2 crossover trial, preclinical undergraduate students were randomly assigned to two groups to perform two types of dental isolation, conventional rubber dam and OptraDam^® Plus, in alternating sequences on a dental simulator. The efficacy and feasibility of both systems were evaluated based on application time, isolation quality, and students’ perceptions. Results: Data from 94 randomized students were collected and analyzed. Although students’ performance was suboptimal with both systems, there were significant differences in efficacy and feasibility between them. Application time was shorter with the conventional rubber dam (mean reduction 77 s; 95% CI 4–151; p = 0.039), whereas using OptraDam^® Plus was associated with 51% lower odds of achieving a higher isolation quality category (OR 0.49; p = 0.011). In addition, students perceived the conventional rubber dam to be superior to the OptraDam^® Plus in achieving higher-quality dental isolation and in their confidence in using it. Conclusions: OptraDam^® Plus cannot be considered a suitable alternative to the conventional rubber dam in preclinical simulation training due to its inferior efficacy and feasibility. The findings of this study challenge the assumption that utilization of newer marketed “user-friendly” rubber dam systems necessarily overcome the core technical barriers faced by undergraduate students.