OpenAlex · Aktualisierung stündlich · Letzte Aktualisierung: 17.05.2026, 23:44

Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.

Can ChatGPT be trusted as a resource for a scholarly article on treatment planning implant-supported prostheses?

2025·9 Zitationen·Journal of Prosthetic DentistryOpen Access
Volltext beim Verlag öffnen

9

Zitationen

1

Autoren

2025

Jahr

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Access to artificial intelligence is ubiquitous but its limitations in the preparation of scholarly articles have not been established in implant restorative treatment planning. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine if ChatGPT can be a reliable resource in synthesizing the best available literature on treatment planning questions for implant-supported prostheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six questions were posed to ChatGPT on treatment planning implant-supported prostheses for the partially edentulous and completely edentulous scenario. Question 1: Would higher crown to implant ratios (C/I) greater than 1:1 be linked to increased marginal bone loss? Question 2: Do 2-unit posterior cantilevers lead to more bone loss than 2 adjacent implants? Question 3: Should implants be splinted in the posterior maxilla in patients that require no grafting and are not bruxers? Question 4: Do patients prefer a maxillary implant overdenture to a well-made complete denture? Question 5: Do resilient and rigid anchorage systems have the same maintenance when comparing implant overdentures? Question 6: Do denture patients prefer fixed implant prostheses compared with removable implant prostheses? Follow-up questions were intended to clarify the source and content of the supporting evidence for ChatGPT's responses. Additional higher quality and timely studies indexed on PubMed were identified for ChatGPT to consider in a revision of its original implant treatment planning answer. A quantitative rating was assessed based on 4 indices: accurate/retrievable source, representative literature, accurate interpretation of evidence, original conclusion reflects best evidence. RESULTS: ChatGPT's responses to: Question 1: "Higher C/I can be associated with an increased risk of marginal bone loss." Revision: "While many clinicians believe that higher C/I ratios lead to bone loss, recent evidence suggests that this concern is less relevant for modern implants." Question 2: "The presence of cantilever extensions with short implants tend to fail at earlier time points and has been associated with a higher incidence of technical complications. Revision: "The use of implant-supported single-unit crowns with cantilever extensions in posterior regions is a viable long-term treatment option with minimal complications." Question 3: "Splinted restorations were associated with a higher implant survival rate, particularly in the posterior region." Revision: "There is no compelling evidence to suggest that splinting all implants in the posterior maxilla is necessary." Question 4: Patients report higher satisfaction with maxillary implant-supported overdentures compared to conventional complete dentures. Revision: "For patients with adequate maxillary bone support, a conventional denture may be just as satisfactory as an implant overdenture." Question 5: "While resilient attachments may require more frequent replacement of components, rigid attachments might necessitate monitoring for implant-related complications due to increased stress." Revision: "Research indicates that rigid attachment systems, such as bar and telescopic attachments, do not necessarily lead to increased complications due to stress in implant overdentures." Question 6: "Yes, in general, denture patients tend to prefer fixed implant prostheses over removable implant prostheses due to several key advantages. However, preferences can vary based on individual needs, costs, and clinical factors." Revision: "There is no universal patient preference for fixed or removable implant prostheses. Satisfaction is generally high with both options, and preference depends on individual patient factors, including comfort, hygiene, cost, and anatomical considerations." CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT has not demonstrated the ability to accurately cull the literature, stratify the rigor of the evidence, and extract accurate implications from the studies selected to deliver the best evidence-based answers to questions on treatment planning implant-supported prostheses.

Ähnliche Arbeiten

Autoren

Institutionen

Themen

Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationDental Implant Techniques and Outcomesscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Volltext beim Verlag öffnen