Comparative analysis of artificial intelligence chatbots in orthodontic emergency scenarios: ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, Copilot, and Gemini.

IF 3.2

The Angle orthodontist Pub Date : 2025-09-26 DOI:10.2319/021825-146.1

Buket Erdem, Mustafa Özcan, Çağla Şar

{"title":"Comparative analysis of artificial intelligence chatbots in orthodontic emergency scenarios: ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, Copilot, and Gemini.","authors":"Buket Erdem, Mustafa Özcan, Çağla Şar","doi":"10.2319/021825-146.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To evaluate and compare the accuracy of four AI chatbots, ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, Copilot, and Gemini, in response to orthodontic emergency scenarios.Materials and methods: Forty frequently asked questions related to orthodontic emergencies were posed to the chatbots. These questions were categorized as fixed orthodontic treatment, clear aligner treatment, eating and oral hygiene, pain and discomfort, general concerns, retention, and sports and travel. The responses were evaluated by three orthodontic experts using a five-point Likert scale, and statistical analysis was conducted to assess variations in accuracy across chatbots.Results: Statistical analysis revealed significant differences among the chatbots. Gemini and ChatGPT-4.0 demonstrated the highest accuracy in response to orthodontic emergencies, followed by Copilot, whereas ChatGPT-3.5 had the lowest accuracy scores. Additionally, the \"Fixed Orthodontic Treatment\" category showed a statistically significant difference (P = .043), with Gemini outperforming the other chatbots in this category. However, no statistically significant differences were found in other categories.Conclusions: AI chatbots show potential in providing immediate assistance for orthodontic emergencies, but their accuracy varies across different models and question categories.","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Angle orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/021825-146.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate and compare the accuracy of four AI chatbots, ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, Copilot, and Gemini, in response to orthodontic emergency scenarios.

Materials and methods: Forty frequently asked questions related to orthodontic emergencies were posed to the chatbots. These questions were categorized as fixed orthodontic treatment, clear aligner treatment, eating and oral hygiene, pain and discomfort, general concerns, retention, and sports and travel. The responses were evaluated by three orthodontic experts using a five-point Likert scale, and statistical analysis was conducted to assess variations in accuracy across chatbots.

Results: Statistical analysis revealed significant differences among the chatbots. Gemini and ChatGPT-4.0 demonstrated the highest accuracy in response to orthodontic emergencies, followed by Copilot, whereas ChatGPT-3.5 had the lowest accuracy scores. Additionally, the "Fixed Orthodontic Treatment" category showed a statistically significant difference (P = .043), with Gemini outperforming the other chatbots in this category. However, no statistically significant differences were found in other categories.

Conclusions: AI chatbots show potential in providing immediate assistance for orthodontic emergencies, but their accuracy varies across different models and question categories.

查看原文本刊更多论文

人工智能聊天机器人ChatGPT-3.5、ChatGPT-4.0、Copilot和Gemini在正畸急救场景中的对比分析

目的：评估和比较四种AI聊天机器人ChatGPT-3.5、ChatGPT-4.0、Copilot和Gemini在正畸紧急情况下的准确性。材料与方法：向聊天机器人提出40个与正畸紧急情况相关的常见问题。这些问题被分类为固定正畸治疗、透明矫正器治疗、饮食和口腔卫生、疼痛和不适、一般问题、滞留、运动和旅行。三位正畸专家使用五点李克特量表对这些回答进行了评估，并进行了统计分析，以评估聊天机器人在准确性方面的差异。结果：统计分析显示聊天机器人之间存在显著差异。Gemini和ChatGPT-4.0在应对正畸紧急情况时表现出最高的准确性，其次是Copilot，而ChatGPT-3.5的准确性得分最低。此外，“固定正畸治疗”类别显示出统计学上显著的差异（P = 0.043）， Gemini在这一类别中的表现优于其他聊天机器人。然而，在其他类别中没有发现统计学上的显著差异。结论：人工智能聊天机器人显示出在正畸紧急情况下提供即时援助的潜力，但其准确性因模型和问题类别而异。

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

The Angle orthodontist

自引率

0.00%

发文量