Comparative evaluation demonstrates significant variation in AI model accuracy and response completeness across prosthodontic domains, highlighting the need for expert clinical oversight.
Purpose: To compare the scientific accuracy and response completeness of four contemporary LLMs: ChatGPT-5.2, Gemini 3, Copilot, and DeepSeek-V3.2 across major prosthodontic domains and question formats.Methods: Fifty prosthodontic questions covering removable prosthodontics, fixed prosthodontics, implantology, temporomandibular disorders and occlusion, dental materials science were developed from standard textbooks and clinical guidelines. Questions were presented in yes/no, multiple-choice, and open-ended formats to reflect different levels of clinical reasoning. Responses generated by ChatGPT-5.2 (OpenAI), Gemini 3 (Google), Microsoft Copilot (Microsoft), and DeepSeek-V3.2 were independently evaluated by five prosthodontists using Likert-based scales for accuracy and completeness. Inter-rater reliability was assessed to ensure scoring consistency, and model performances were compared across domains and question types using nonparametric statistical tests.Results: Overall accuracy differed significantly among the four models (p0.05), although descriptive trends suggested slightly higher scores for yes/no questions and lower scores for multiple-choice items. Response completeness also varied significantly across models (p0.05).Conclusion: Contemporary large language models demonstrate acceptable theoretical performance in prosthodontics; however, clinically relevant differences persist in response completeness and consistency. These models may support prosthodontic education and preliminary information retrieval, but cannot replace expert clinical judgment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yiğit et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: