Purpose: To compare the scientific accuracy and response completeness of four contemporary LLMs: ChatGPT-5.2, Gemini 3, Copilot, and DeepSeek-V3.2 across major prosthodontic domains and question formats.Methods: Fifty prosthodontic questions covering removable prosthodontics, fixed prosthodontics, implantology, temporomandibular disorders and occlusion, dental materials science were developed from standard textbooks and clinical guidelines. Questions were presented in yes/no, multiple-choice, and open-ended formats to reflect different levels of clinical reasoning. Responses generated by ChatGPT-5.2 (OpenAI), Gemini 3 (Google), Microsoft Copilot (Microsoft), and DeepSeek-V3.2 were independently evaluated by five prosthodontists using Likert-based scales for accuracy and completeness. Inter-rater reliability was assessed to ensure scoring consistency, and model performances were compared across domains and question types using nonparametric statistical tests.Results: Overall accuracy differed significantly among the four models (p0.05), although descriptive trends suggested slightly higher scores for yes/no questions and lower scores for multiple-choice items. Response completeness also varied significantly across models (p0.05).Conclusion: Contemporary large language models demonstrate acceptable theoretical performance in prosthodontics; however, clinically relevant differences persist in response completeness and consistency. These models may support prosthodontic education and preliminary information retrieval, but cannot replace expert clinical judgment.
Objective: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of implant vertical positioning on the accuracy of digital and conventional impressions for single implants using three-dimensional superimposition analysis.Material and Methods: A master model with a single implant analog (Biohorizons, 5.7 mm) was prepared at three different gingival depths (2 mm, 4 mm, and 6 mm) in the mandibular first molar region. Digital impressions were obtained using two intraoral scanners (Trios 3Shape and Cerec Omnicam), while conventional impressions were taken using polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) and condensation silicone (Type C silicone). In total, 96 test models (n=8 per group) were generated. All models were digitized and compared to the reference STL model using reverse-engineering software (Rapidform) for 3D deviation analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (α=0.05).Results: No statistically significant differences were observed between the digital impression groups (p>0.05). Among conventional techniques, the group using C-silicone showed significantly higher deviations than the PVS group (p
Vildan Aslıyüce, Nihal Özcan, Elif Yiğit İren et al.· Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Tıp F...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.