International endodontic journal · 2025
Emergency Management of Permanent Tooth Avulsion: Comparative Performance of Dental Students and Artificial Intelligence Using a Multimodal Clinical Vignette Across Bloom's Taxonomy Domains.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Al-Haj Ali Sanaa N
Аннотация
AIM: To pioneer the first comprehensive benchmarking of dental students against 22 multimodal Artificial Intelligence (AI) models spanning six major architectures (Anthropic, DeepSeek, Google Gemini, OpenAI, Meta Llama, Mistral/Qwen) in emergency permanent tooth avulsion management, quantifying performance differences across Bloom's Taxonomy higher-order cognitive domains (Apply, Analyse, Evaluate) against International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) guidelines to optimise evidence-based educational integration.
METHODOLOGY: This cross-sectional study compared 35 fifth-year dental students with 22 multimodal AI models grouped by producer (Anthropic, DeepSeek, Google Gemini, OpenAI, Meta, Mistral/Qwen) using a validated clinical vignette featuring a 14-year-old with three avulsed mature permanent teeth (#11, 12, 22) with clinical photograph. Performance was assessed through four questions (1 Apply, 2 Analyse, 1 Evaluate) via an IADT-aligned rubric validated against paediatric dentistry standards. Responses were independently scored by two blinded evaluators. Subsequently, scores were compared using ANOVA with post hoc Tukey HSD, Kruskal-Wallis, and chi-square tests (SPSS v20, α = 0.05).
RESULTS: Overall performance analysis revealed significant group differences (p = 0.012, partial η2 = 0.27). Only students achieved high-acceptability A-level performance (17.1%, χ2 = 39.27, p = 0.003), despite top AI models (Claude-Sonnet-3.7-Reasoning, DeepSeek-R1: 7.0/10) marginally exceeding student mean scores (6.5/10). Performance varied among AI systems, with students significantly outperforming Meta Llama models (mean difference = 3.50, p = 0.014), which showed exclusively not acceptable (D-level) performance. Students dominated Bloom's Analyse level (visual diagnosis: 100% tooth identification vs. 77.3% AI failure; age-specific management differentiation, p < 0.001), while AI excelled in Apply/Emergency steps (medical management: 81.8% perfect scores) and Evaluate/prosthetic contraindication reasoning (Anthropic: 0.92 ± 0.20 vs. students: 0.41 ± 0.33, p = 0.005). Critical AI deficiencies included tooth misidentification (77% of models), failure to mention follow-up schedules for immature replanted teeth (100%), and inappropriate intervention recommendations (40.9% suggested unsuitable options like resin-bonded bridges). For soft tissue management, only 23% of AI models addressed the need to suture gingival lacerations.
CONCLUSIONS: AI's fundamental limitations in visual diagnosis, IADT misinterpretations, and inadequate clinical translation mandate strict positioning as a supplemental protocol accelerator-not an independent diagnostic tool. Educational integration requires: (1) Careful model selection and supervision for any visual triage applications; (2) Mandatory IADT verification; and (3) Preservation of human clinical reasoning as the irreplaceable cornerstone of permanent tooth avulsion management.
METHODOLOGY: This cross-sectional study compared 35 fifth-year dental students with 22 multimodal AI models grouped by producer (Anthropic, DeepSeek, Google Gemini, OpenAI, Meta, Mistral/Qwen) using a validated clinical vignette featuring a 14-year-old with three avulsed mature permanent teeth (#11, 12, 22) with clinical photograph. Performance was assessed through four questions (1 Apply, 2 Analyse, 1 Evaluate) via an IADT-aligned rubric validated against paediatric dentistry standards. Responses were independently scored by two blinded evaluators. Subsequently, scores were compared using ANOVA with post hoc Tukey HSD, Kruskal-Wallis, and chi-square tests (SPSS v20, α = 0.05).
RESULTS: Overall performance analysis revealed significant group differences (p = 0.012, partial η2 = 0.27). Only students achieved high-acceptability A-level performance (17.1%, χ2 = 39.27, p = 0.003), despite top AI models (Claude-Sonnet-3.7-Reasoning, DeepSeek-R1: 7.0/10) marginally exceeding student mean scores (6.5/10). Performance varied among AI systems, with students significantly outperforming Meta Llama models (mean difference = 3.50, p = 0.014), which showed exclusively not acceptable (D-level) performance. Students dominated Bloom's Analyse level (visual diagnosis: 100% tooth identification vs. 77.3% AI failure; age-specific management differentiation, p < 0.001), while AI excelled in Apply/Emergency steps (medical management: 81.8% perfect scores) and Evaluate/prosthetic contraindication reasoning (Anthropic: 0.92 ± 0.20 vs. students: 0.41 ± 0.33, p = 0.005). Critical AI deficiencies included tooth misidentification (77% of models), failure to mention follow-up schedules for immature replanted teeth (100%), and inappropriate intervention recommendations (40.9% suggested unsuitable options like resin-bonded bridges). For soft tissue management, only 23% of AI models addressed the need to suture gingival lacerations.
CONCLUSIONS: AI's fundamental limitations in visual diagnosis, IADT misinterpretations, and inadequate clinical translation mandate strict positioning as a supplemental protocol accelerator-not an independent diagnostic tool. Educational integration requires: (1) Careful model selection and supervision for any visual triage applications; (2) Mandatory IADT verification; and (3) Preservation of human clinical reasoning as the irreplaceable cornerstone of permanent tooth avulsion management.