Ethical and Regulatory Perception of Artificial Intelligence Among Dental Students: A Cross-Sectional Study.

IF 1.9 4区 教育学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
M Engelschalk, K Al Hamad, R Smeets, F T Molnar, K Bozsonyi, A Bán
{"title":"Ethical and Regulatory Perception of Artificial Intelligence Among Dental Students: A Cross-Sectional Study.","authors":"M Engelschalk, K Al Hamad, R Smeets, F T Molnar, K Bozsonyi, A Bán","doi":"10.1111/eje.70048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Given the rapid pace of digital technology and AI integration, addressing humanitarian concerns and potential ethical dilemmas in future dentistry treatment approaches is paramount. This study aimed to provide an overview of ethical problem awareness among dental students.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>One hundred and thirty students were recruited. An online survey with 24 multiple choice questions was created on 14 AI domains: familiarity, ethical norms, applications, data management, regulation, database location for training, personal data access, access responsibility, AI's impact on healthcare, moral and legal responsibility, AI and human responsibility, prohibited areas and AI's role in dentistry.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant gender, education and regional differences existed among participants (p < 0.05). Only 25% never heard or used AI. Legal experts and professional boards were perceived as crucial for AI ethics (54.7%), data management (60.6%) and decision making (52.3%). Participants favoured clinicians taking the primary role in decision-making (51.6% very often, 10.9% always). AI impact was perceived as positive on diagnostics (42.1%), therapy (56%) and medical engineering (83.6%). Clinicians were assigned high (50.8%) or very high (14.1%) moral responsibility and high (25.7%) and very high (15%) legal responsibility for medical errors. Most participants recommended minor restrictions, including AI making life-or-death decisions (79.5%). AI was supported for treatment planning (68.5%), active treatment participation (43.8%), treatment evaluation (56.9%) and disease prediction (56.9%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Significant demographic differences in AI ethics awareness among dental students highlight the need for inclusive AI ethics education and interdisciplinary governance frameworks in dentistry.</p>","PeriodicalId":50488,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Dental Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Dental Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.70048","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Given the rapid pace of digital technology and AI integration, addressing humanitarian concerns and potential ethical dilemmas in future dentistry treatment approaches is paramount. This study aimed to provide an overview of ethical problem awareness among dental students.

Materials and methods: One hundred and thirty students were recruited. An online survey with 24 multiple choice questions was created on 14 AI domains: familiarity, ethical norms, applications, data management, regulation, database location for training, personal data access, access responsibility, AI's impact on healthcare, moral and legal responsibility, AI and human responsibility, prohibited areas and AI's role in dentistry.

Results: Significant gender, education and regional differences existed among participants (p < 0.05). Only 25% never heard or used AI. Legal experts and professional boards were perceived as crucial for AI ethics (54.7%), data management (60.6%) and decision making (52.3%). Participants favoured clinicians taking the primary role in decision-making (51.6% very often, 10.9% always). AI impact was perceived as positive on diagnostics (42.1%), therapy (56%) and medical engineering (83.6%). Clinicians were assigned high (50.8%) or very high (14.1%) moral responsibility and high (25.7%) and very high (15%) legal responsibility for medical errors. Most participants recommended minor restrictions, including AI making life-or-death decisions (79.5%). AI was supported for treatment planning (68.5%), active treatment participation (43.8%), treatment evaluation (56.9%) and disease prediction (56.9%).

Conclusions: Significant demographic differences in AI ethics awareness among dental students highlight the need for inclusive AI ethics education and interdisciplinary governance frameworks in dentistry.

牙科学生对人工智能的伦理和监管认知:一项横断面研究。
导言:鉴于数字技术和人工智能集成的快速发展,解决未来牙科治疗方法中的人道主义问题和潜在的伦理困境至关重要。本研究旨在提供牙科学生的道德问题意识的概述。材料与方法:共招募学生130名。一项包含24个选择题的在线调查涉及14个人工智能领域:熟悉度、道德规范、应用、数据管理、监管、培训数据库位置、个人数据访问、访问责任、人工智能对医疗保健的影响、道德和法律责任、人工智能和人类责任、禁止区域和人工智能在牙科中的作用。结果:参与者之间存在显著的性别、教育程度和地区差异(p结论:牙科学生人工智能伦理意识的显著人口统计学差异突出了牙科领域包容性人工智能伦理教育和跨学科治理框架的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
127
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The aim of the European Journal of Dental Education is to publish original topical and review articles of the highest quality in the field of Dental Education. The Journal seeks to disseminate widely the latest information on curriculum development teaching methodologies assessment techniques and quality assurance in the fields of dental undergraduate and postgraduate education and dental auxiliary personnel training. The scope includes the dental educational aspects of the basic medical sciences the behavioural sciences the interface with medical education information technology and distance learning and educational audit. Papers embodying the results of high-quality educational research of relevance to dentistry are particularly encouraged as are evidence-based reports of novel and established educational programmes and their outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信