RESUMO
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The artificial intelligence (AI) software program ChatGPT is based on large language models (LLMs) and is widely accessible. However, in prosthodontics, little is known about its performance in generating answers. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the performance of ChatGPT in generating answers about removable dental prostheses (RDPs) and tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty short questions were designed about RDPs and tooth-supported FDP, and 30 answers were generated for each of the questions using ChatGPT-4 in October 2023. The 900 generated answers were independently graded by experts using a 3-point Likert scale. The relative frequency and absolute percentage of answers were described. Accuracy was assessed using the Wald binomial method, while repeatability was evaluated using percentage agreement, Brennan and Prediger coefficient, Conger generalized Cohen kappa, Fleiss kappa, Gwet AC, and Krippendorff alpha methods. Confidence intervals were set at 95%. Statistical analysis was performed using the STATA software program. RESULTS: The performance of ChatGPT in generating answers related to RDP and tooth-supported FDP was limited. The answers showed a reliability of 25.6%, with a confidence range between 22.9% and 28.6%. The repeatability ranged from substantial to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that currently ChatGPT has limited ability to generate answers related to RDPs and tooth-supported FDPs. Therefore, ChatGPT cannot replace a dentist, and, if professionals were to use it, they should be aware of its limitations.
Assuntos
Inteligência Artificial , Prostodontia , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Projetos de Pesquisa , SoftwareRESUMO
(1) Gingival inflammation is an ongoing challenge in tooth-supported fixed restorations, especially when the prosthetic margin does not consider the supracrestal tissues of patients. This case report aimed to present the case of a patient who was periodontally compromised due to a previous invasion of the supracrestal tissue attachment with fixed restorations and evaluate the healing response of periodontal tissues to a vertical edgeless preparation technique: bleeding upon probing (BOP), periodontal probing depth (PPD) and clinical attachment level (CAL). (2) After tooth preparation, the new restorations were adapted, this time without invading the supracrestal space of the patient, and CAD/CAM monolithic zirconia crowns were fabricated. (3) Optimal maturation of the soft tissue was observed, achieving correction of the marginal contour of periodontal tissues and improvement of periodontal indexes. (4) It can be concluded that the BOPT technique combined with a full digital workflow is a valid option for the correction and remodeling of gingival architecture.
RESUMO
(1) Multiple in vitro studies reported insufficient accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for complete-arch multiple implant impression. The aim of the study is to analyze the precision of three IOSs, PIC dental (Pic dental, Iditec North West SL), TRIOS 3 (3Shape), and True Definition (Midmark Corporation) and the influence of several factors in the edentulous complete maxillary and mandibular arch. (2) A fully edentulous patient with eight implants in the maxillary and in the mandibular jaw was selected. Five impressions were taken per system and arch. A suprastructure was designed on each digital working cast. The precision was analyzed comparing each of the 28 distances and seven relative angulations of the abutments of all the designed suprastructures. The descriptive statistics, the Student's t-test, and the ANOVA test were used to analyze the data (α = 0.05). (3) Significant differences were observed when comparing the IOSs in some of the distances and angulations. (4) The increase in the distance between implants affected the precision of T and TD but not the PIC system. The type of arch did not affect the PIC precision, but the T and TD systems performed worse in the mandibular arch. The system with the best precision was the PIC, followed by TD, and then T.