Introduction Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being explored in dental education as a tool to support teaching, learning, assessment, and clinical decision-making. This systematic review synthesized current evidence on the implementation and educational impact of AI technologies in undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing dental education. Methodology A PRISMA-guided systematic review was conducted using Scopus, PubMed, and IEEE Xplore. Studies published between 2020 and 2025 evaluating AI applications in dental education were identified using predefined PICO criteria. Educational outcomes included knowledge acquisition, diagnostic accuracy, clinical reasoning, procedural skills, learner engagement, and perceptions of AI-assisted learning. Results The included literature reflects an expansion from machine learning, deep learning, and computer vision systems primarily evaluated for diagnostic support toward generative AI platforms, including large language models and retrieval-augmented generation systems. Across the included studies, AI applications were frequently associated with favorable diagnostic and examination performance and, in selected educational contexts, with supportive findings related to clinical reasoning, technical competency, feedback, and self-directed learning. However, the evidence was predominantly based on technical performance assessments and observational or cross-sectional designs. Discussion AI is increasingly being explored as a potential complementary educational resource, with applications including interactive tutoring, adaptive learning, and support for clinical reasoning. Nevertheless, heterogeneous methodologies and limited longitudinal evidence indicate the need for standardized educational evaluation and responsible curricular integration. Conclusion AI shows potential as a complementary resource in dental education. Its integration should remain pedagogically guided and ethically supervised while future research establishes its educational effectiveness through standardized and longitudinal evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Morales-Cevallos et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: