aceModerate evidence
Published recordHealthThe Trace
More
Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Orthodontic Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Teaching Application
- Truvace record
- TRV-2026-2834raw data (JSON)
- Version
- v1Published
- First published
- Evidence type
- Systematic review or meta-analysis
- Sources
- 1 sourcePeer-reviewed
- sha256
- 692a7a00a188…check it
Background/Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly emerging as a transformative force in healthcare education, including orthodontics. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the integration of AI into orthodontic training programs, focusing on its effectiveness in improving diagnostic accuracy, learner engagement, and the perceived quality of AI-generated educational content. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Scien…
64Gain side
How the two sides scoreClose call
64Problem side
The gain
A systematic review of seven studies with 1,101 participants found AI-assisted cephalometry training improved orthodontic students' landmarking accuracy, and pooled ChatGPT content quality scored 3.69 on the Global Quality Scale (two studies).
The problem
A systematic review of seven orthodontic education studies found 87.8% of North American programs lacked formal AI seminars and faculty cited high costs (89.3%) and lack of technical knowledge (94.7%).
A fixed formula sets both scores from the evidence and its sources. Reader votes don’t move them.
What the scores mean
G is the gain side, out of 100. It goes up when the gain is specific, when it measurably helped people and when the sources behind it are strong.
P is the problem side, out of 100. It goes up when the problem is specific, when it measurably hurt people and when the sources behind it are strong.
What this doesn’t fix
Only two studies could be pooled and I2 was 64.5%; the other outcomes relied on narrative synthesis of mostly small, non-randomized studies and self-reported survey data, which limits generalizability.
Sources
1 on file- Journal of Clinical Medicinedoi:10.3390/jcm14155487
What the review found when it combined the studies
These are the review’s own pooled results, copied from its abstract. Truvace did not recalculate them.
Perceived quality of ChatGPT-generated orthodontic educational content on the Global Quality Scale
Pooled mean GQS score 3.69 (95% CI 3.58 to 3.80)
search to May 2025
The review’s own words
The pooled mean GQS score was 3.69 (95% CI: 3.58 to 3.80), indicating a moderate-to-high perceived quality of information.
Code checks every number above against the review’s text before it is shown. The short labels are an AI model’s reading of that text, so the review’s own sentence sits under each one. A pooled figure is only as strong as the studies behind it. How Truvace uses pooled results
Cite this record
v1Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2834, v1: “Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Orthodontic Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Teaching Application.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2834 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 692a7a00a188ab09…
Change history
1 versionEvery change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.
Certified into the record
Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page
Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2834 and hash its canonical field yourself, for example with shasum -a 256. You should get its content_hash. Each version’s text also ends with prev:and the hash of the version before it (version 1 points to 64 zeros). If anyone had changed a single character of any version after it was saved, those hashes wouldn’t line up.