TRV-2026-2354Certified recordPeer-reviewed

Large language model responses to postoperative questions in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a comparative evaluation

Abstract Background Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as patient-facing informational tools in dentistry, but their suitability for postoperative communication in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) remains uncertain. This study compared ChatGPT-5.4 Thinking, DeepSeek-V3.2, and Gemini 3 (Thinking mode) in answering routine postoperative OMFS questions. Methods Thirty standardised open-ended postoperative questions were submitted once to each model through public web interfaces using the same n…

Health · The Trace — both readings · certified 2026-11-03 · v1 · article view · machine-readable

Current reading — gain

Expert surgeons rated the chatbot answers highly for quality, led by Gemini 3 at 4.82 out of 5, and 89 of 90 responses were classified as safe.

Current reading — problem

One Gemini response on clopidogrel resumption was classed as a missed red flag giving false reassurance, and factual accuracy ratings showed limited agreement between raters.

What this doesn’t fix

The findings are limited to simulated, single-turn, English-language first responses and do not establish patient comprehension or real-world safety.

Evidence

Reader signal

How should this claim be treated?

Cite this record

Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2354, v1: “Large language model responses to postoperative questions in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a comparative evaluation.” Truvace, 2026-11-03. /record/TRV-2026-2354 (accessed at citation time). sha256 411dee04ad9226b1…

Calibration history

Every change to this record since certification, in the open. None yet — the reading has held since it entered the record.

  1. Certifiedv1411dee04ad92…

    Certified into the record

Verify this record
How to verify without trusting this page

Fetch the canonical text of any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2354 and hash it yourself — for example shasum -a 256 on the saved canonical field. The result must equal content_hash, and each version’s text ends with prev:followed by the prior version’s hash (version 1 chains to 64 zeros). If a single character of any version had been altered since certification, the chain would not reproduce.