Skip to content
#large language models Review Open access

AI-Driven Feedback on Bitewing Radiographic Technique: A Comparative Study of Large Language Models.

Oct 2026 · European journal of dental education · 0 citations · 33 references
Medicine

TL;DR

LLM-generated feedback varied by model, prompt design and positioning error type, but not consistently across assessment categories, suggesting model differences did not vary across assessment categories.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Large language models (LLMs) can enhance learning engagement and accessibility, though their performance in dentistry is inconsistent. Bitewing radiographs are critical for caries detection but prone to diagnostic errors from operator positioning. This study compared the performance of four LLMs with reasoning capabilities, GPT o1, GPT o3-mini, Gemini 2.0 Flash and Grok 3, in generating scenario-specific educational feedback from a structured textual format of bitewing radiographs.

Materials And Methods

Ten positioning error scenarios were created by DMFR specialists. LLMs were evaluated using an original prompt (OP) and an engineered prompt (EP), resulting in a 4 × 2 LLM-by-prompt design. Each LLM was tested via its model-specific access mode: API or web interface. Eighty outputs were assessed by two DMFR specialists for detail, content, clarity and relevance using a 5-point Likert scale. Ordinal category-level scores were analysed using a cumulative link mixed-effects model, with LLM, prompt type, scenario group, assessment category and LLM × prompt as fixed effects, and scenario as a random intercept.

Results

The LLM-prompt interaction was significant, indicating prompt engineering affected models differently. GPT o3-mini had significantly lower odds of higher scores than Gemini 2.0 Flash, while EP reduced Grok 3 performance. Positioning error type influenced performance, with significant model-dependent differences across scenario groups. No significant LLM-assessment category interaction was observed, suggesting model differences did not vary across assessment categories.

Conclusion

LLM-generated feedback varied by model, prompt design and positioning error type, but not consistently across assessment categories. Outputs require validation, model-specific prompt testing and specialist review before implementation.

Read PDF

Similar papers

Open access Sep 2026

Evaluation of large language model responses to expert questions in anterior implant dentistry: quality, accuracy, and readability

AI chatbots can generate information with potential clinical relevance in anterior implant dentistry; however, variability in informational reliability persists and expert supervision remains essential before integrating such tools into clinical education.

Dalndushe Abdulai, Raghıb Suradı, Mehran Moghbel · 0 citations
Sep 2026

Comparative evaluation of large language models in interpreting the scientific literature on intraoral scanners across varying input levels.

Evaluating the response accuracy of 2 advanced large language models found the Gemini-3.0 Flash responses excelled in highly structured, direct-response questions to relevance, clarity, and closeness to the article, whereas the ChatGPT-5.2 response demonstrated greater scientific accuracy at all levels and performed be...

Pranay Jain, F. R, A. V et al. · 0 citations
Review Sep 2026

Development and performance of a specialized large language model for restorative treatment planning.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Although general-purpose large language models (LLMs) have shown some promise in supporting dental treatment planning, their performance remains suboptimal. This limitation underscores the need for specialized models tailored to restorative dentistry. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to deve...

M. Shirani · 0 citations
Open access Sep 2026

Evidence on Demand: OpenEvidence versus Established LLMs on the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in medical education, yet head-to-head comparisons of contemporary multimodal and clinically oriented (retrieval-grounded) models on orthopedic in-service examinations remain limited. A cross-sectional comparative study was conducted using 265 multiple-choic...

Asim A. Khan, S. Lalvani, Sam Pourarbab et al. · 0 citations
Open access Sep 2026

Comparative Evaluation of Large Language Models’ Accuracy in Answering Multiple-Choice Restorative Dentistry Questions From a National Specialty Examination

Objective: Although the integration of large language models (LLMs) into dental education is rapidly increasing, their actual performance in domain-specific assessments remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of four LLMs (ChatGPT-4.0, Gemini Advanced 1.5 Pro, DeepSeek-V3, and Perplexity)...

Çilem Bulut, Gulben Colak, Gürkan Çolak · 0 citations

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Oct 23, 2026

Q&A: How AI came to model the “messy” human mind

Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.

Microsoft Research Blog Oct 22, 2026

Flint-interactive: A language for creating interactive data visualizations

Flint-interactive gives AI agents a language for creating interactive visualizations. Click a chart, filter data, highlight related content, and explore beyond the view the author originally chose. The post Flint-interactive: A language for creating interactive data visualizations appeared first on Microsoft Research.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.