PURPOSE: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are increasingly used by dental students and faculty for literature review, coursework preparation, and scholarly writing. In restorative dentistry education, where evidence-based decision-making is fundamental, inaccurate AI-generated citations may pose educational risks. This study evaluated the bibliographic reliability of AI-generated references in restorative dentistry topics and examined their potential implications for dental education. METHODS: Five large language model (LLM)-based chatbots were tested using ten standardised restorative dentistry prompts representing commonly assigned educational topics. Each chatbot generated 100 references (N = 500). References were manually verified using indexed databases and evaluated using the Reference Hallucination Score (RHS; range 0-11). Chatbot performance was compared using the Friedman test, followed by Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons. Binary bibliographic error parameters were analysed using generalised linear mixed models, with chatbot type, prompt complexity, and their interaction as fixed effects and prompt as a random intercept (α = 0.05). RESULTS: A significant overall difference in RHS was observed among the evaluated AI chatbots (p < 0.001), with post hoc analyses identifying significant differences between specific model pairs. ChatGPT-5.2 and Perplexity AI demonstrated the lowest hallucination severity, whereas Copilot and DeepSeek-v3.2 demonstrated the highest. Prompt complexity did not significantly influence hallucination severity. Errors most frequently involved author names, journal titles, and DOIs. CONCLUSIONS: AI-generated references in restorative dentistry demonstrated substantial variability in bibliographic accuracy across the evaluated AI systems. These inaccuracies may pose potential risks to evidence-based learning and academic integrity, highlighting the importance of systematic reference verification and AI literacy in dental education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Manav et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: