# Clinical, Research, and Educational Applications of ChatGPT in Dentistry: A Narrative Review
## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Topic** & **Subtopic** & **Authors (Year)** & **Conclusions** \\ \hline
**Educational** & & **[PERSON], and [PERSON]** & **LMs can enhance dental education by offering personalized feedback, case scenarios, and educational content. However, they also present challenges like bias, inaccuracies, privacy issues, and the risk of overreliance.** \\ \hline
**Educational** & & **[PERSON] (2024)** & **A majority of students in the cohort were reluctant to use ChatGPT. Furthermore, familiarity (reading) with ChatGPT features appears to alter the expectations and enhance learning performance of students, suggesting an AI description-related cognitive bias.** \\ \hline
**Educational** & _General expertise_ & **[PERSON], [PERSON], et al.** (2024)** **[**78**]** & **No significant difference was found in response scores. However, residents showed low agreement, while LLMs showed high agreement. Dentists should leverage AI for diagnosis and treatment.** \\ \hline
**Educational** & _General expertise_ & **[PERSON], [PERSON], et al. (2024)** **[**79**]** & **Generative AI can transform virtual learning. Healthcare educators should adapt to its benefits for learners while mitigating dishonest use.** \\ \hline
**Educational** & _General expertise_ & **[PERSON], et al. (2024)** **[**80**]** & **AI in endodontic education will support clinical and didactic teaching through individualized feedback; enhanced, augmented, and virtually generated training aids; automated detection and diagnosis; treatment planning and decision support; and AI-based student progress evaluation and personalized education.** \\ \hline
**Educational** & _General expertise_ & **[PERSON], [PERSON], et al. (2023)** **[**81**]** & **Although LLMs show promise in evidence-based dentistry, their limitations can lead to harmful decisions if not used carefully. They should complement, not replace, a dentist’s critical thinking and expertise.** \\ \hline
**Educational** & _General expertise_ & **[PERSON], [PERSON], and S.** **Paris (2024)** **[**82**]** & **Overall, there are large performance differences among LLMAs. Only the ChatGPT-4 models achieved a success ratio that could be used with caution to support the dental academic curriculum.** \\ \hline
**Educational** & _General expertise_ & **[PERSON], et al. (2024)** **[**83**]** & **For periodontal surgery exams, ChatGPT's accuracy was not as high as students’, but it shows potential in assisting with the curriculum and helping with clinical letters and reviews.** \\ \hline
**Educational** & _General expertise_ & **[PERSON], [PERSON], et al.** (2024)** **[**84**]** & **ChatGPT initially demonstrated good accuracy and completeness, which was further improved with machine learning (ML) over time. However, some inaccurate answers and references persisted.** \\ \hline
**Educational** & _General expertise_ & **[PERSON], [PERSON], et al.** (2024)** **[**85**]** & **ChatGPT generated clear, scientifically accurate and relevant, comprehensive, and consistent responses to diverse oral health-related queries despite some significant limitations.** \\ \hline
**Educational** & _General expertise_ & **[PERSON], [PERSON], et al.** (2024)** **[**86**]** & **Classic OMS diseases are underrepresented. The current literature related to LLMs in OMS has a limited evidence level.** \\ \hline
**Educational** & _General expertise_ & **[PERSON], et al.** (2024)** **[**87**]** & **ChatGPT-4 performed well on AAP in-service exam questions, outperforming Gemini and ChatGPT-3.5. While it shows potential as an educational tool in periodontitis and oral implantology, limitations like processing image-based inquiries, inconsistent responses, and not reaching absolute accuracy must be considered.** \\ \hline
**Educational** & _GPT vs. literature research_ & **[PERSON], et al.** (2024)** **[**88**]** & **Students using ChatGPT for their learning assignments performed significantly better in the knowledge examination than their fellow students who used the literature research methodology.** \\ \hline
**Educational** & _GPT vs. literature research_ & **[PERSON], [PERSON], et al. (2024)** **[**89**]** & **Dental students highly valued the experience of using ChatGPT for academic tasks. Nonetheless, the traditional method of searching for scientific articles yield higher scores.** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}