Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
logo
  • Login
  • Register
E-ISSN: 2146-1767
  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archives
  • For Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Online Submission
    • Reference Style
    • Call for Papers
    • Language Editing Service
  • For Reviewers
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Become a Reviewer
    • Reviewer Resources
  • Ethics & Policies
    • Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy
    • Authorship and Contributorship
    • Conflicts of Interest
    • Copyright and Permission
    • Corrections and Retractions
    • Crossmark Policy
    • Editorial Policy
    • Human and Animal Rights
    • Informed Consent Policy
    • Journal Management
    • Open Access Statement
    • Research Ethics Policy
    • Publication Ethics Policy
  • Journal Info
    • About
    • Abstracting & Indexing
    • Peer Review Process
    • Publication Fee
    • Society Information
    • Useful Links
    • Contact
  1. Home /
  2. Search

Search

Advanced filters
Published After
Published Before

Search Results

Found one item.
  • Comparative evaluation of the responses from ChatGPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and DeepSeek-V3.1 chatbots to patient inquiries about endodontic treatment in terms of accuracy, understandability, and readability

    Aim: The aim of this study is to compare three large language models (LLMs) (ChatGPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and DeepSeek-V3.1) in terms of accuracy, understandability, and readability, based on the answers provided to frequently asked endodontic questions. Methodology: Thirty open-ended frequently asked questions were generated using the AlsoAsked and AnswerThePublic websites. Two experienced endodontists scored the accuracy of the responses using a 5-point Likert scale. The understandability of the responses was analyzed using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printed Materials (PEMAT-P) tool. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Coleman-Liau Index (CLI). Group comparisons were performed using the ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by post-hoc Dunn-Bonferroni tests. Results: Inter-rater agreement was excellent (accuracy ICC: 0.908–0.917; reliability ICC: 0.992–0.995; all p < 0.001). A significant difference was found between the models in terms of accuracy (p < 0.001): DeepSeek-V3.1 (4.63 ± 0.81) scored the highest and performed significantly better than ChatGPT-5 (3.93 ± 0.79) and Gemini 2.5 Flash (3.67 ± 0.76). No significant difference between ChatGPT-5 and Gemini 2.5 Flash (p > 0.05). The understandability (PEMAT-P) scores were similar (p = 0.683), and all models scored above 70% (ChatGPT-5, 77.46%; Gemini, 76.04%; DeepSeek-V3.1, 77.57%). Differences were found in readability metrics: DeepSeek-V3.1 scored higher than ChatGPT-5 in FRES (p = 0.044); Gemini scored higher than DeepSeek-V3.1 in FKGL (p = 0.001); in GFI, Gemini 2.5 Flash scored higher than both ChatGPT-5 (p = 0.036) and DeepSeek-V3.1 (p < 0.001); in SMOG, Gemini outperformed DeepSeek-V3.1 (p = 0.003); and in CLI, ChatGPT-5 was higher than DeepSeek-V3.1 (p = 0.004). No significant correlation was found between readability and understandability (p > 0.05). Conclusion: DeepSeek-V3.1 outperformed ChatGPT-5 and Gemini 2.5 Flash in terms of accuracy. While all models produced similar scores above the PEMAT-P understandability threshold (70%), there were significant differences in readability metrics; furthermore, no model consistently reached the recommended 6 th –8 th grade level.
    Artificial intelligence, large language models (LLMs), ChatGPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, patient questions in endodontics, accuracy, understandability, PEMAT-P, readability
    Makbule Taşyürek, Özkan Adıgüzel, Mustafa Gündoğar, Myroslav Goncharuk-Khomyn, Hatice Ortaç
    31.12.2025
    123-135
    Abstract Views: 7603 Download: 2303 DOI 10.5577/intdentres.662
1 - 1 of 1 items

Journal Issue

Vol. 16 (2026): International Dental Research
Vol. 16 (2026) Continuous Publication
View Current Issue

Published Volumes

2026
  • Vol. 16 (2026): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 16 No. S1 (2026): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 16 No. Advanced Online (2026): International Dental Research
2025
  • Vol. 15 No. 3 (2025): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 15 No. 2 (2025): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 15 No. 1 (2025): International Dental Research
2024
  • Vol. 14 No. 3 (2024): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 14 No. Suppl. 1 (2024): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 14 No. 2 (2024): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 14 No. 1 (2024): International Dental Research
  • 2024: Advanced Online
2023
  • Vol. 13 No. S1 (2023): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 13 No. 3 (2023): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 13 No. 2 (2023): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 13 No. 1 (2023): International Dental Research
2022
  • Vol. 12 No. Suppl. 1 (2022): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 12 No. 3 (2022): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 12 No. 2 (2022): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 12 No. 1 (2022): International Dental Research
  • No. Accepted Articles: International Dental Research
Show more Show less
2021
  • Vol. 11 No. 3 (2021): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 11 No. Suppl. 1 (2021): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 11 No. 2 (2021): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 11 No. 1 (2021): International Dental Research
2020
  • Vol. 10 No. 3 (2020): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 10 No. 2 (2020): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 10 No. 1 (2020): International Dental Research
2019
  • Vol. 9 No. 3 (2019): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 9 No. 2 (2019): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 9 No. 1 (2019): International Dental Research
2018
  • Vol. 8 No. 3 (2018): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 8 No. 2 (2018): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 8 No. 1 (2018): International Dental Research
2017
  • Vol. 7 No. 3 (2017): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 7 No. 2 (2017): International Dental Research
  • Vol. 7 No. 1 (2017): International Dental Research
2016
  • Vol. 6 No. 1 (2016): Volume 6, No 1, 2016
2012
  • Vol. 2 No. 3 (2012): Volume 2, No 3, 2012
  • Vol. 2 No. 1 (2012): Volume 2, No 1, 2012
  • Vol. 2 No. 2 (2012): Volume 2, No 2, 2012
2011
  • Vol. 1 No. 3 (2011): Volume 1, No 3, 2011
  • Vol. 1 No. 2 (2011): Volume 1, No 2, 2011
  • Vol. 1 No. 1 (2011): Volume 1, No 1, 2011

socialshare

Submit Your Paper
Become a Reviewer

sidebarmenu

Journal Menu

 Home

 Aims & scopes

 Editorial Board

 Author Guidelines

 Abstracting & Indexing

 Peer Review Process

 Ethics Statement

 Plagiarism Policy

 Digital Archiving Policy

 Corrections and Retractions

 Journal History

 Journal Statistics

 Society Information

 Congresses & Events

 Language Editing

 Contact

idr




Citations
Updated daily Google Scholar
All Since 2021
Citations 1053 854
h-index 13 11
i10-index 18 12
0 50 100 150 200 250
  • 37 2019
  • 49 2020
  • 71 2021
  • 112 2022
  • 148 2023
  • 139 2024
  • 201 2025
  • 180 2026
Citations per year
Year Citations
2019 37
2020 49
2021 71
2022 112
2023 148
2024 139
2025 201
2026 (to date) 180

2026 counts citations recorded so far this year.

icmje and ithenticate

Indexed in CiteLink

EBSCO

TR Dizin Journal List

Keywords

Information

  • For Readers
  • For Authors
  • For Librarians

Latest publications

  • Atom logo
  • RSS2 logo
  • RSS1 logo
Most Read Articles
  • Endodontic Irrigation Solutions: A Review
    13186 13186 views 2017
  • Mechanical properties of resin composites containing bioactive glass and experimental nano zinc-silica complex
    11026 11026 views 2021
  • Areas for use of PEEK material in dentistry
    9390 9390 views 2018
  • Comparative evaluation of the responses from ChatGPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and DeepSeek-V3.1 chatbots to patient inquiries about endodontic treatment in terms of accuracy, understandability, and readability
    7603 7603 views 2025
  • Evaluation of the color stability and surface roughness of dual-cure, bulk-fill composites
    7026 7026 views 2021

announcement

Announcement

visitors

Visitors 

Flag Counter

Web Analytics

View My Stats

Most Cited Articles
  • Areas for use of PEEK material in dentistry
    160 160 citations 2018
  • Contemporary Permanent Luting Agents Used in Dentistry: A Literature Review
    61 61 citations 2011
  • The Latest Developments Related to Composite Resins
    43 43 citations 2017
  • PEEK in dentistry, properties and application areas
    37 37 citations 2020
  • A Literature Review of Self Adjusting File
    31 31 citations 2011

Browse

  • Categories
    • Open Access
    • Original Article
    • Review
    • Case Report
    • Letter to Editor
logo
E-ISSN: 2146-1767

Download App

Contact

Publisher: International Dental Research

Email: info@dental-research.com

Website: www.dental-research.com

Address: Publisher ZEUS PUBLISHING www.zeuspublishing.com

Social Media

ElsevierCiteLinkEBSCOOpen AccessCrossrefGoogle ScholarCOPECreative Commons

Copyright © 2011-2026 | International Dental Research. All rights reserved.
CC BY Open Access articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction provided the original work is properly cited.

Privacy notice

This journal stores a session cookie that is required for the site to work, and keeps usage statistics that do not identify you.

More information