Orlando Motohiro Tanaka, Gil Guilherme Gasparello, Sergio Luiz Mota-Júnior, Mohamad Jamal Bark, Jacqueline de Almeida Antunes Rozyscki, Rafael Bordin Wolanski
{"title":"Effectiveness of AI-generated orthodontic treatment plans compared to expert orthodontist recommendations: a cross-sectional pilot study.","authors":"Orlando Motohiro Tanaka, Gil Guilherme Gasparello, Sergio Luiz Mota-Júnior, Mohamad Jamal Bark, Jacqueline de Almeida Antunes Rozyscki, Rafael Bordin Wolanski","doi":"10.1590/2177-6709.30.1.e2524186.oar","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a prominent focus in orthodontics.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to compare treatment plans generated by AI platforms (ChatGPT, Google Bard, Microsoft Bing) with those formulated by an experienced orthodontist.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This observational cross-sectional pilot study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of AI-powered platforms in creating orthodontic treatment plans, using a clinical case treated by an experienced orthodontist as a benchmark. A clinical case was selected, and after obtaining informed consent, detailed case information was presented to ChatGPT-3.5, Microsoft Bing Copilot, and Google Bard Gemini for treatment planning. The AI-generated plans, along with the orthodontist's plan, were evaluated by 34 orthodontists using a questionnaire that included Likert scale and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) items. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the levels of agreement with the proposed treatment plans.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Orthodontists exhibited significantly higher levels of agreement with treatment plans proposed by the orthodontist, compared to those generated by AIs platforms (p < 0.001). Both Likert scale and VAS scores indicated increased confidence in the orthodontist's expertise in formulating treatment plans. No significant differences were found among the AI platforms, though Google Bard received the lowest mean scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Orthodontists demonstrated a higher level of acceptance of treatment plans formulated by human counterparts over those generated by AI platforms. While AI offers significant contributions, the clinical judgment and experience of orthodontists remain essential for thorough and effective treatment planning in orthodontics.</p>","PeriodicalId":38720,"journal":{"name":"Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics","volume":"30 1","pages":"e2524186"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11939423/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.30.1.e2524186.oar","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a prominent focus in orthodontics.
Objective: This study aimed to compare treatment plans generated by AI platforms (ChatGPT, Google Bard, Microsoft Bing) with those formulated by an experienced orthodontist.
Methods: This observational cross-sectional pilot study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of AI-powered platforms in creating orthodontic treatment plans, using a clinical case treated by an experienced orthodontist as a benchmark. A clinical case was selected, and after obtaining informed consent, detailed case information was presented to ChatGPT-3.5, Microsoft Bing Copilot, and Google Bard Gemini for treatment planning. The AI-generated plans, along with the orthodontist's plan, were evaluated by 34 orthodontists using a questionnaire that included Likert scale and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) items. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the levels of agreement with the proposed treatment plans.
Results: Orthodontists exhibited significantly higher levels of agreement with treatment plans proposed by the orthodontist, compared to those generated by AIs platforms (p < 0.001). Both Likert scale and VAS scores indicated increased confidence in the orthodontist's expertise in formulating treatment plans. No significant differences were found among the AI platforms, though Google Bard received the lowest mean scores.
Conclusions: Orthodontists demonstrated a higher level of acceptance of treatment plans formulated by human counterparts over those generated by AI platforms. While AI offers significant contributions, the clinical judgment and experience of orthodontists remain essential for thorough and effective treatment planning in orthodontics.
期刊介绍:
The Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics publishes scientific research articles, significant reviews, clinical and technical case reports, brief communications, and other materials related to Orthodontics and Facial Orthopedics.