Background/Objectives: Large language model (LLM) chatbots are increasingly used for dental information and decision support, yet their accuracy and short-term reproducibility in endodontics remain insufficiently established. This study compared five chatbots using open-ended questions derived from established AAE and ESE endodontic guidelines. Methods: Twenty-six guideline-based questions were content-validated by five endodontists using Lawshe’s Content Validity Ratio. ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Pro, DeepSeek-V3-0324, ScholarGPT (academic version built on OpenAI’s GPT-4 architecture), and MedGebra GPT-4 answered each question across three days and three sessions per day, yielding 1170 responses. Two blinded endodontists scored responses on a 5-point guideline-concordance scale. Brunner–Langer LD-F2 analyses assessed model and temporal effects, while weighted kappa evaluated response consistency. Results: The overall model effect was significant (p < 0.001). ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Pro, DeepSeek-V3-0324, and ScholarGPT showed comparable performance, whereas MedGebra GPT-4 performed significantly lower after Bonferroni correction. The day effect was not significant (p = 0.054), while the session effect (p = 0.048) and model × session interaction (p = 0.030) were significant. Weighted kappa values varied across models and assessment days, ranging from 0.689–0.730 for Gemini 2.5 Pro, 0.606–0.662 for ChatGPT-4o, 0.520–0.645 for DeepSeek-V3-0324, 0.458–0.592 for ScholarGPT, and 0.240–0.739 for MedGebra GPT-4. Conclusions: Guideline-aligned performance and short-term reproducibility differed across the evaluated chatbots, showing that accuracy and consistency represent distinct aspects of performance. Repeated assessment captured variation missed by single-session testing. These findings support guideline-based evaluation and clinician verification when generative AI chatbots are used to provide endodontic information relevant to decision support or dental education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Akçay et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: