Search

Background: In recent years, there has been remarkable growth in AI-based applications in healthcare, with a significant breakthrough marked by the launch of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and Google Bard. Patients and health professional students commonly utilize these models due to their accessibility. The increasing use of LLMs in healthcare necessitates an evaluation of their ability to generate accurate and reliable responses. Objective: This study assessed the performance of LLMs in answering orthodontic-related queries through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar was conducted up to 31 October 2024. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST), and R Studio software (Version 4.4.0) was employed for meta-analysis and heterogeneity assessment. Results: Out of 278 retrieved articles, 10 studies were included. The most commonly used LLM was ChatGPT (10/10, 100% of papers), followed by Google's Bard/Gemini (3/10, 30% of papers), and Microsoft's Bing/Copilot AI (2/10, 20% of papers). Accuracy was primarily evaluated using Likert scales, while the DISCERN tool was frequently applied for reliability assessment. The meta-analysis indicated that the LLMs, such as ChatGPT-4 and other models, do not significantly differ in generating responses to queries related to the specialty of orthodontics. The forest plot revealed a Standard Mean Deviation of 0.01 [CI: 0.42–0.44]. No heterogeneity was observed between the experimental group (ChatGPT-3.5, Gemini, and Copilot) and the control group (ChatGPT-4). However, most studies exhibited a high PROBAST risk of bias due to the lack of standardized evaluation tools. Conclusions: ChatGPT-4 has been extensively used for a variety of tasks and has demonstrated advanced and encouraging outcomes compared to other LLMs, and thus can be regarded as a valuable tool for enhancing educational and learning experiences. While LLMs can generate comprehensive responses, their reliability is compromised by the absence of peer-reviewed references, necessitating expert oversight in healthcare applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the large number of studies that have been done in this area, there is still a gap in the literature when it comes to comparing the orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) efficacy of Invisalign and fixed orthodontic appliances. The primary objectives of this study were to evaluate and compare the efficacy of Invisalign and fixed orthodontic appliances in terms of the amount and rate of OTM. Specifically, the study aimed to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between these two treatment modalities in achieving OTM and to assess whether treatment duration differs significantly between Invisalign and traditional fixed appliances. This investigation seeks to address the existing gaps in the literature by providing a clear comparison based on recent empirical evidence, thereby contributing to more informed treatment decisions in orthodontic practices. Methodology: Relevant MeSH keywords and Boolean operators were selected by a team of reviewers to search several online databases for papers that were in accordance with the objectives of our review. Results: At the end of the search protocol, 10 studies were deemed to be eligible for inclusion in the review. The pooled analysis revealed a statistically significant reduction in treatment time for patients using Invisalign compared to those with fixed appliances, with a total OR of 0.61 [95% CI 0.43, 0.85]. No significant heterogeneity was detected (I2 = 0%), and the test for overall effect was significant (Z = 2.86, p = 0.004). Furthermore, a nonsignificant trend favoring Invisalign was shown, with an odds ratio of 1.43 and a confidence interval that included 1 (0.97, 2.10). The p value was 0.07, and there was negligible heterogeneity among studies, as indicated by an I2 of 0%. Conclusion: Based on the findings from the selected studies, it can be concluded that Invisalign and fixed orthodontic appliances have similar overall efficacy in eliciting OTM. However, Invisalign treatment requires significantly less time to complete than fixed orthodontic appliances. Despite these observations, further studies are required to explore the long‐term stability of OTM achieved with Invisalign and fixed orthodontic appliances. Registration and Protocol: Registration was done in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) standards (CRD42023405593). The research protocol was created to meet the goals and was properly filed with PROSPERO; however, it has not been prospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate dental students' perceptions of manual and digital cephalometric landmark identification methods based on their preferences, difficulty level, and procedure time required to provide insights into the future of dental education, considering incorporating digital technology in dental schools. Materials and methods: Fifty‐five second‐year dental students were randomly divided into two groups: (1) group A, students who performed manual landmark identification first, followed by digital method; and (2) group B, students who performed digital method first, followed by manual method. The duration of the procedure was recorded. Subsequently, all students completed a questionnaire regarding the difficulty they experienced using a visual analog scale and their preferences. Landmark identification accuracy was measured. Results: Digital landmark identification was preferred by 93% of students. The mean procedure time for digital method was significantly lower than that of manual method (13.00 ± 5.60 vs. 9.70 ± 4.60; p = 0.002). Group B completed manual and digital methods in a shorter time than group A. Group A experienced less difficulty with manual procedure than group B. However, statistically significant differences were not observed in the difficulty level of digital technique. A statistically significant difference in the mean accuracy was shown in favor of the manual method. However, this difference is clinically insignificant (p = 0.001). Conclusions: Students considered digital method to be effective for learning and preferred it over manual method. Furthermore, digital landmark identification demonstrated better performance and was faster than manual method, suggesting that this must be incorporated in undergraduate dental education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Methods for retracting the anterior teeth are divided into frictional methods and non-frictional methods. However, evidence regarding the superiority of one technique over the other is still lacking in the available literature. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of frictional methods of anterior teeth retraction compared to the non-frictional ones. The extracted data included the mechanism of application of the retraction force and its intensity, the observation period, follow-up records, and outcome measures. Ten studies were included in this review; the results did not favor a specific technique regarding the rate of orthodontic tooth movement and loss of anchorage during canine retraction, although a preference was shown for the sliding technique in the rate of en-masse retraction (0.74 versus 0.39 mm/month) and the anchorage control during the retraction of the incisors (0.5 versus 0.1 mm/month). The control of the incisor's torque during the en-masse retraction was higher when frictionless techniques were used (−12° versus −7°). Regarding the rate of orthodontic tooth movement, the non-frictional technique is characterized by a high sensitivity to the quality of the design, and the sliding technique was generally effective. As for controlling the torque of the incisors, the preference is for the non-frictional technique. Overall, there is a need to conduct more studies with an appropriate design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]