## 2 Materials and Methods
### Answers Evaluation  
After collecting the responses from all four AI models, the anonymized outputs were distributed to four pediatric dentists, each with at least 10 years of academic and clinical experience. To ensure unbiased evaluation, the identity of the generating model was concealed for all responses. Evaluators were provided with the current IADT guidelines on TDIs in primary teeth [21], which served as the reference standard for their assessments. In addition to the anonymized responses and the guidelines, a standardized Microsoft Excel spreadsheet was supplied to each evaluator for structured scoring. To assess intra-rater reliability, each expert independently evaluated the full set of responses twice, with a one-week interval between assessments. In cases where significant discrepancies occurred between the two rounds, the corresponding question-response pairs were re-sent for clarification and re-evaluation. The final score from this third review was accepted as the definitive rating for each item. Additionally, if disagreements persisted or if scoring discrepancies greater than one point remained after the third review, a structured consensus meeting was conducted involving all four pediatric dentists. During these sessions, evaluators discussed their rationale in a blinded manner and reached a final score through majority agreement. This procedure ensured scoring consistency and helped minimize subjectivity across all AI-generated responses. Two key dimensions were employed in the manual evaluation process: accuracy and completeness. (i) **Accuracy** was assessed using a five-point Likert scale [22; 23]:  
_1 = Poor_: The response lacked factual accuracy and coherence; most essential details were missing. _2 = Fair_: Some accurate elements were present, but important content was either missing or unclear. _3 = Moderate_: Partially accurate, with a mix of correct and missing or vague information. _4 = Good_: Mostly accurate and coherent, with only minor omissions. _5 = Excellent_: Highly accurate, comprehensive, and well-organized response. (ii) **Completeness** was rated using a three-point Likert scale [22; 23]:  
_1 = Incomplete_: Key aspects of the question were not addressed. _2 = Adequate_: All major components of the question were addressed. _3 = Comprehensive_: The response addressed all required elements and included additional relevant insights. To further clarify how expert ratings were applied in practice, the following example illustrates the evaluation process for the question:  
_\"In which types of traumatic dental injuries in the primary dentition is radiographic examination recommended, and which types of radiographic approaches should be used?\"_  
A response that included specific types of TDIs where radiographs are indicated (e.g., intrusion, lateral luxation, suspected root fractures), explained the rationale, and referencedappropriate imaging modalities such as periapical or occlusal radiographs--while also addressing the Acceptable, being Indication-oriented and Patient-specific (ALADAIP) principle--was scored as:  
* Accuracy: 5 (Excellent)
* Completeness: 3 (Comprehensive)  
A response that listed some appropriate injury types (e.g., intrusion, avulsion) and mentioned \"periapical X-ray\" without elaboration or missed key concepts like ALADAIP was scored as:  
* Accuracy: 3-4 (Moderate to Good)
* Completeness: 2 (Adequate)  
A response that recommended radiographs for all types of injuries indiscriminately or suggested using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) without justification or context was scored as:  
* Accuracy: 2 (Fair)
* Completeness: 1 (Incomplete)  
This example demonstrates how reviewers applied the Likert scales based on guideline adherence, depth of explanation, and the inclusion of critical concepts such as appropriate imaging types and justification for use. To assess the reliability of expert ratings, [PERSON] kappa statistics were computed across all four evaluators for both accuracy and completeness scores.