Skip to content
Open access

Assessing the Diagnostic Performance of ChatGPT-5.0 versus Machine Learning in Orthodontics: A Comparative Analysis for Extraction Treatment Planning.

Aug 2026 · Turkish Journal of Orthodontics · 0 citations
Medicine

TL;DR

While XGBoost yielded the highest overall classification accuracy, ChatGPT-5.0's high sensitivity in detecting extraction cases was noteworthy, and it demonstrated performance comparable to, and in some cases superior to, traditional ML models for orthodontic extraction decisions.

Abstract

Objective To make accurate orthodontic extraction decisions, various clinical and cephalometric variables must be evaluated. This study aims to evaluate ChatGPT-5.0's performance in distinguishing orthodontic extraction decisions and to compare it with five supervised machine learning (ML) algorithms. Methods Of 550 retrospectively evaluated orthodontic records, 30 were reserved for calibration, leaving 520 for the main analysis. The reference standard was the consensus treatment decision of three expert orthodontists with more than 5 years of clinical experience. Overall, 23 variables were analyzed, including 13 clinical parameters, 7 cephalometric measurements, and photographs. ChatGPT-5.0's performance was evaluated using a 5-fold cross-validation design. It was compared with XGBoost, random forest, support vector machine (SVM), logistic regression, and multi-layer perceptron (MLP). Performance metrics included accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, F1-score, and balanced accuracy, with 95% confidence intervals calculated. Statistical analyses utilized Cochran's Q test and the McNemar test with Holm-Bonferroni correction. Results Of the 520 main cases, 223 (42.88%) were extraction treatments and 297 (57.12%) were non-extraction treatments. XGBoost achieved the highest accuracy (78.08%), followed closely by ChatGPT-5.0 (75.77%). The overall performance difference among models was significant (p≤0.001). In pairwise comparisons, ChatGPT's accuracy was significantly higher than those of random forest, SVM, logistic regression, and MLP, but was found to be similar to XGBoost. ChatGPT-5.0 showed the highest sensitivity (76.68%), whereas XGBoost showed the highest specificity (82.15%). Conclusion ChatGPT-5.0 demonstrated performance comparable to, and in some cases superior to, traditional ML models for orthodontic extraction decisions. While XGBoost yielded the highest overall classification accuracy, ChatGPT-5.0's high sensitivity in detecting extraction cases was noteworthy.

Read PDF

Similar papers

Review Open access Jul 2026

Evaluating the informational accuracy of large language models in patient‑directed orthodontic retainer guidance: a cross‑sectional comparison of Chat GPT‑4.1, Gemini 2.5, Microsoft Copilot GPT-4.1 and DeepSeek‑V3.

Findings suggest that AI models such as ChatGPT and Gemini can generate patient‑directed orthodontic retainer information with high informational accuracy under controlled evaluation conditions, however, specialist oversight remains essential to ensure clinical applicability.

Muhammad Mughni, M. Ilyas, Syed Ali Naqi Gilani et al. · 0 citations

Different tools, same diagnosis? A comparison of digital orthodontic model analysis methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study.

The free orthodontic software produced tooth-width and arch space deficiency measurements clinically comparable to those of the commercial platform and within clinically acceptable agreement limits of plaster-cast calliper measurements.

Dicle Ceylan, Celal Genç, Gökhan Serhat Duran · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

Accuracy of a Novel Designed Standard Operating Procedure for Orthodontic Diagnosis (SOPOD) Compared with Routine Methods Among Dental Interns: A Comparative Cross Sectional Study

Objective: To compare the diagnostic accuracy and time efficiency of a Standard Operating Protocol for Orthodontic Diagnosis (SOPOD) with routine diagnostic methods among dental interns. Materials and Methods: Twenty seven dental interns with ≥2 weeks of orthodontic clinical posting participated. Baseline diagnoses we...

Niharika Khandelwal, J. Sodawala, Tanu Mahobia et al. · 0 citations
Jul 2026

Automated extraction and evaluation of anterior esthetic parameters: A computer vision approach.

The developed approach demonstrated excellent agreement with expert consensus and provided stable, reproducible esthetic measurements from intraoral scan data and may support clinical decision-making in digitally assisted esthetic dentistry.

Wenjia Chen, Tian Zhou, Mengyu Liang et al. · 0 citations
Open access Jul 2026

Predicting gingival embrasure risk after invisible orthodontics using multimodal data and machine learning

A risk prediction model for post-clear aligner gingival embrasures was successfully developed and validated using multimodal oral data, with RF as the optimal algorithm that exhibits good discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility.

Haiyan Wang, Hanfei Shi, Liping Fan et al. · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

Validation of a digital tool for Moyers mixed dentition analysis: agreement and efficiency compared with the manual method

ABSTRACT Introduction: Mixed dentition analysis is essential for predicting space requirements and guiding early orthodontic decision-making. Moyers analysis is widely used due to its simplicity and clinical applicability, however, manual execution may increase execution time and introduce operator-dependent errors. Ob...

Mariana Vasconcellos Bazoli Rodrigues, Luciana Rougemont Squeff, Amanda Cunha Regal de Castro et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.