Dergiler / HRÜ Uluslararası Diş Hekimliği ve Oral Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 6 Issue: 2

Evaluation of Parents’ Questions Regarding Endodontic Treatments in Pediatric Dentistry by Different Artificial Intelligence Models

Enes Bardakçı(HARRAN UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF DENTISTRY, DEPARTMENT OF CLINICAL SCIENCES (FACULTY OF DENTISTRY), DEPARTMENT OF PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY)0009-0007-8557-2946
Hazar Baha Karadeniz(ATATÜRK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-6087-148X
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2026-08-31
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Therefore, chatbot responses should be not only accurate but also clear and supported by credible sources, which is particularly important in health-related communication.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Background: Parents increasingly consult publicly accessible artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots for information about their children’s dental treatment, and endodontic procedures in primary teeth are among the interventions that generate the greatest parental concern, so the quality of the information these tools deliver has direct consequences for informed decision-making.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:This study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of four publicly accessible artificial intelligence (AI)-based chatbot platforms - Grok 3, Microsoft Copilot, ChatGPT (GPT-5) and Perplexity - in responding to frequently asked questions (FAQs) posed by parents regarding primary tooth endodontic treatments in pediatric dentistry.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Therefore, chatbot responses should be not only accurate but also clear and supported by credible sources, which is particularly important in health-related communication.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Artificial Intelligence · chatbot · endodontic treatment

Abstract

Background: Parents increasingly consult publicly accessible artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots for information about their children’s dental treatment, and endodontic procedures in primary teeth are among the interventions that generate the greatest parental concern, so the quality of the information these tools deliver has direct consequences for informed decision-making. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of four publicly accessible artificial intelligence (AI)-based chatbot platforms - Grok 3, Microsoft Copilot, ChatGPT (GPT-5) and Perplexity - in responding to frequently asked questions (FAQs) posed by parents regarding primary tooth endodontic treatments in pediatric dentistry. Materials and Methods: Inter-rater reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Responses generated by the chatbots were evaluated using a standardized protocol. Accuracy was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, quality using the Global Quality Scale (GQS), readability using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), and reliability using the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) scale. A total of 20 categorized questions were individually submitted to each chatbot. All responses were independently evaluated by a specialist pediatric dentist and a pediatric dentistry research assistant. Because every question was submitted to all four platforms, related-samples methods were used: the Friedman test for accuracy, quality and reliability, and a one-way repeated-measures ANOVA with Greenhouse-Geisser correction for readability. Results: Inter-rater reliability between evaluators was excellent (ICC range across scales: 0.947-0.956; the 95% CI for each scale is given in Table 2). No statistically significant differences were observed among the chatbots regarding accuracy and quality (p>0.05). Readability differed significantly among the platforms in both question groups (overall p<0.05); in the pulpectomy group Microsoft Copilot was significantly more readable than Perplexity and Grok 3, whereas in the pulpotomy group no pairwise comparison remained significant after Bonferroni correction. Additionally, Perplexity showed superior reliability scores (p<0.001). Conclusions: AI-based chatbots may serve as supplementary tools for patient education on pediatric dental procedures such as pulpotomy and pulpectomy. Nevertheless, current models still have limitations concerning readability and reliability. Therefore, chatbot responses should be not only accurate but also clear and supported by credible sources, which is particularly important in health-related communication.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Bardakçı, E., Karadeniz, H. B. (2026). Evaluation of Parents’ Questions Regarding Endodontic Treatments in Pediatric Dentistry by Different Artificial Intelligence Models. HRÜ Uluslararası Diş Hekimliği ve Oral Araştırmalar Dergisi, Volume: 6 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.61139/ijdor.1917096

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (42)

  1. Chakraborty C, Pal S, Bhattacharya M, Dash S, Lee SS.Overview of chatbots with special emphasis on artificial intelligence-enabled ChatGPT in medical science. Front Artif Intell. 2023;6:1237704.
  2. Weizenbaum J. ELIZA: a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Commun ACM. 1966;9(1):36-45.
  3. Tosun B, Öztürk Z. Performance of five large language models in managing acute dental pain: a comprehensive analysis. Turk Endod J. 2025;10(1):39-49.
  4. Reddy S. Evaluating large language models for use in healthcare: a framework for translational value assessment. Inform Med Unlocked. 2023;41:101304.
  5. Sarrion E. What is ChatGPT? In: Exploring the Power of ChatGPT. New York: Apress; 2023:3-8.
  6. Wangsa K, Karim S, Gide E, Elkhodr M. A systematic review and comprehensive analysis of pioneering AI chatbot models from education to healthcare: ChatGPT, Bard, Llama, Ernie and Grok. Future Internet. 2024;16(7):219.
  7. Stratton J. An introduction to Microsoft Copilot. In: Copilot for Microsoft 365. Berkeley, CA: Apress; 2024:19-35.
  8. Kara M, Ozduran E, Kara MM, Ozbek IC, Hanci V. Evaluating the readability, quality, and reliability of responses generated by ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity on ankylosing spondylitis. PLoS One. 2025;20(6):e0326351.
  9. Welsby P, Cheung BMY. ChatGPT. Postgrad Med J. 2023;99(1176):1047-8.
  10. Karadeniz HB, Celikel P, Sengul F. Comparative assessment of AI-generated responses to frequently asked questions by parents on space maintainers in pediatric dentistry. BMC Oral Health. 2026;26:335. Deike M. Evaluating the performance of ChatGPT and Perplexity AI in business reference. J Bus Financ Librariansh. 2024;29(2):125-54.
  11. Gheisarifar M, Shembesh M, Koseoglu M, Fang Q, Afshari FS, Yuan JC, et al. Evaluating the validity and consistency of artificial intelligence chatbots in responding to patients’ frequently asked questions in prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 2025;134(1):199-206.
  12. Bayraktar Nahir C. Can ChatGPT be a guide in pediatric dentistry? BMC Oral Health. 2025;25(1):9.
  13. Arriola-Pacheco FG. Caregivers’ questions about pediatric dentistry: a conversation with ChatGPT. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2025;35(3):481-3.
  14. Acar NK, Sengul F, Bardakci E, Celikel P. Assessing the accuracy, reliability, quality, and readability of artificial intelligence chatbots in patient education: insights from zirconia crowns. BMC Oral Health. 2026;26:502.
  15. Semeraro F, Gamberini L, Carmona F, Monsieurs KG. Clinical questions on advanced life support answered by artificial intelligence: a comparison between ChatGPT, Google Bard and Microsoft Copilot. Resuscitation. 2024;195:110114.
  16. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol. 1932;22(140):55.
  17. Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S, Rose C, Leddin D, Veldhuyzen van Zanten S. A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel disease information resources on the World Wide Web. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(9):2070-7.
  18. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32(3):221-33.
  19. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53(2):105-11.
  20. Campbell DJ, Xiao K, Mastrolonardo E, Cognetti DM. Evaluating YouTube videos on sialendoscopy as an educational resource for patients. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2023;8(1):82-8.
  21. Wu V, Lee DJ, Vescan A, Lee JM. Evaluating YouTube as a source of patient information for functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Ear Nose Throat J. 2022;101(6):396-401.
  22. Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP. YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis—a wakeup call? J Rheumatol. 2012;39(5):899-903.
  23. Hancı V, Ergün B, Gül Ş, Uzun Ö, Erdemir İ, Hancı FB. Assessment of readability, reliability, and quality of ChatGPT, Bard, Gemini, Copilot, and Perplexity responses on palliative care. Medicine (Baltimore). 2024;103(33):e39305.
  24. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Pulp therapy for primary and immature permanent teeth. In: The Reference Manual of Pediatric Dentistry. Chicago, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry; 2024:466-74.
  25. Duggal M, Gizani S, Albadri S, Krämer N, Stratigaki E, Tong HJ, et al. Best clinical practice guidance for treating deep carious lesions in primary teeth: an EAPD policy document. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2022;23(5):659-66.
  26. Coll JA, Dhar V, Chen CY, Crystal YO, Guelmann M, Marghalani AA, et al. Use of vital pulp therapies in primary teeth 2024. Pediatr Dent. 2024;46(1):13-26.
  27. Freire Y, Santamaría Laorden A, Orejas Pérez J, Gómez Sánchez M, Díaz-Flores García V, Suárez A. ChatGPT performance in prosthodontics: assessment of accuracy and repeatability in answer generation. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;131(4):659.e1-659.e6.
  28. Topdağı B, Kavaz T. Assessment of information quality in contemporary artificial intelligence systems for digital smile design: a comparative analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2025 Jul 16. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.06.030. Epub ahead of print.
  29. Najeeb M, Islam S. Artificial intelligence (AI) in restorative dentistry: current trends and future prospects. BMC Oral Health. 2025;25(1):592.
  30. Shean R, Shah T, Pandiarajan A, Tang A, Bolo K, Nguyen V, et al. Comparative analysis of DeepSeek R1, DeepSeek-R1-Lite, OpenAI o1 Pro, and Grok 3 performance on ophthalmology board-style questions. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):23101.
  31. Temizsoy Korkmaz F, Ok F, Karip B, Keleş P. Structured evaluation of LLM-generated step-by-step instructions in cadaveric brachial plexus dissection. BMC Med Educ. 2025;25(1):903.
  32. Yigit Yalcin B, Mutlu U, Ok AM, Caklili OT, Hacisahinogullari H, Yenidunya Yalin G, et al. Multidimensional assessment of large language model responses to patient questions on gestational diabetes mellitus. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):43758.
  33. Eraslan R, Ayata M, Yagci F, Albayrak H. Exploring the potential of artificial intelligence chatbots in prosthodontics education. BMC Med Educ. 2025;25(1):321.
  34. Aydın FO, Aksoy BK, Ceylan A, Akbaş YB, Ermiş S, Kepez Yıldız B, et al. Readability and appropriateness of responses generated by ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot for FAQs in refractive surgery. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2024;54(6):313-7.
  35. Tepe M, Emekli E. Assessing the responses of large language models (ChatGPT-4, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot) to frequently asked questions in breast imaging: a study on readability and accuracy. Cureus. 2024;16(5):e59960.
  36. Ye Y, Zheng E, Lan Q, Wu L, Sun H, Xu B, et al. Comparative evaluation of the accuracy and reliability of ChatGPT versions in providing information on Helicobacter pylori infection. Front Public Health. 2025;13:1566982.
  37. Onder CE, Koc G, Gokbulut P, Taskaldiran I, Kuskonmaz SM. Evaluation of the reliability and readability of ChatGPT-4 responses regarding hypothyroidism during pregnancy. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):243.
  38. Nash E, Bickerstaff M, Chetwynd AJ, Hawcutt DB, Oni L. The readability of parent information leaflets in paediatric studies. Pediatr Res. 2023;94(3):1166-71.
  39. Özden İ, Kaplanoğlu MB, Gökyar M, Özden ME, Öveçoğlu HS. Artificial intelligence-driven dental trauma assessment: comparing the performance of chatbot models. Turk Endod J. 2025;10(2):109-15.
  40. Reyhan AH, Mutaf Ç, Uzun İ, Yüksekyayla F. Performance evaluation of large language models in keratoconus: a comparative study of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, Gemini, Copilot, Chatsonic, and Perplexity. J Clin Med. 2024;13(21):6512.
  41. Zorlu Ö, Günal U, Yazici S. Quality, accuracy, and readability of information about hidradenitis suppurativa provided by artificial intelligence: comparative analysis of ChatGPT, Copilot, and Perplexity. Medicine (Baltimore). 2025;104(39):e44728.
  42. Isik V, Sengul RI, Sismanoglu S. Evaluation of large language model-based chatbots for dental trauma management: a comparative study based on accuracy, consistency and information quality. Aust Endod J. 2026:1-8. doi:10.1111/aej.70055. Epub ahead of print.