This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Background/Objectives: Clinicians’ expectations of artificial intelligence (AI) for periodontal care in Central Asia are largely unknown. We surveyed dentists and physicians in Kazakhstan on preliminary requirements for a future decision-support system and explored patients’ self-reported periodontal signs. Methods: Cross-sectional online surveys (July–September 2026; non-probability recruitment) included 33 dentists, 91 primary health care physicians and medical specialists, and 455 adult patients whose periodontal eligibility was not clinically verified; the patient questionnaire did not address AI. Analyses used Wilson 95% confidence intervals (CI), exact tests with Holm adjustment and exploratory logistic regression. Results: Dentists prioritised history-taking (81.8%) and early gingivitis diagnosis (69.7%). Autonomy choices were spread across five clinician-controlled configurations (low autonomy most frequent, 30.3%); no autonomous option was offered. Lack of a legal framework and liability insurance was the most cited barrier (60.6%). Physicians and specialists selected early gingivitis screening (80.2%) but cited insufficient competence (53.8%). Self-reported signs occurred in 49.0% of patients. Associations with high stress (adjusted odds ratio 2.11; 95% CI 1.14–3.89) and family history (1.61; 1.02–2.55) lost significance after excluding 204 responses collected via an inter-university platform. Conclusions: Clinician responses suggest preliminary requirements; patient associations remain exploratory. Instrument and clinical outcome validation should precede system design.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ayash et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: