Integrating Generative Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Dentistry: Enhancing Diagnosis, Treatment Planning, and Procedural Precision Through Advanced Knowledge Representation and Reasoning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) is poised to transform clinical dentistry by enhancing diagnostic accuracy, personalizing treatment planning, and improving procedural precision. This study integrates logic programming and entropy within knowledge representation and reasoning to generate hypotheses, quantify uncertainty, and support clinical decisions. A six-month longitudinal questionnaire was administered to 127 dentists, of whom 119 provided valid responses across four dimensions: current use and knowledge (CUKD), potential applications (PAD), future perspectives (FPD), and challenges and barriers (CBD). Responses, analyzed with both classical statistics and entropy-based measures, revealed significant differences among dimensions (p < 0.01, η2 = 0.14). CUKD, PAD, and FPD all increased steadily over time (baseline means 2.32, 3.06, and 3.27; rising to 3.75, 4.51, and 4.71, respectively), while CBD remained more variable (1.87–3.87). The overall entropic state declined from 0.43 to 0.31 (p = 0.018), reflecting reduced uncertainty. Statistical and entropy-derived trends converged, suggesting growing professional clarity and cautious acceptance of GAI. These findings indicate that, despite persistent concerns, GAI holds promise for advancing adaptive and evidence-driven dental practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".