ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Assessing the accuracy, repeatability, and consistency of ChatGPT 4o in treatment planning for tooth-supported fixed prostheses: a comparative analysis of simple and complex clinical cases.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of ChatGPT 4o in planning tooth-supported fixed prostheses by examining the accuracy, repeatability, and consistency of its responses across various prosthodontic cases. MATERIALS AND
methods1,140 responses were generated for 38 questions regarding simple and complex prosthetic cases, using case schemas from Fundamentals of Fixed Prosthodontics. Each question was asked 30 times at different times of day (morning, afternoon, and evening) to assess response consistency.
resultsChatGPT demonstrated high accuracy (97.08%) for simple fixed prostheses but struggled with complex cases, showing a low accuracy rate of 19.69%. Statistically significant differences were observed in the response accuracy between question categories, indicating that ChatGPT performs better with straightforward cases than with complex ones. Repeatability was high across all question types, though accuracy varied, especially in complex scenarios.
conclusionsThe findings highlight ChatGPT's potential as an assistive tool in simple prosthodontic cases yet emphasize the need for clinician expertise in more complex treatment planning. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: While ChatGPT shows promise as a supplementary tool for dental education and practice, reliance on AI alone for intricate cases remains premature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40892258What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.