Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 12, 2026
Oral Biofilm Sampling for Microbiome Analysis in Healthy Children
Published on: December 31, 2017
Estimating the use of ChatGPT in dental research publications
Sergio E Uribe1, Ilze Maldupa2
1Department of Conservative Dentistry and Oral Health, Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia; Baltic Biomaterials Centre of Excellence, Headquarters at Riga Technical University & RSU Institute of Stomatology, Riga, Latvia; Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany.
Introduction:
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) Large-language models such as ChatGPT have become increasingly popular in various fields. However, the impact of ChatGPT on dental research writing has yet to be quantified. This study aimed to assess ChatGPT's usage in dental research writing and discuss potential advantages and challenges.
Methods:
Using a bibliometric design, we performed a keyword analysis of specific 'signaling words' indicative of ChatGPT use in the titles/abstracts of 299,695 dental research abstracts indexed PubMed 2018-2024. Statistical comparisons using normalized ratios per 10,000 dental publications compared changes in word frequency before and after the ChatGPT release on November 30, 2022.
Results:
Before ChatGPT's release, the frequency of abstracts with signaling words was 47.1 per 10,000 papers. After the release, this increased to 224.2 per 10,000 papers, an increase of 177.2 per 10,000 papers (p = 0.014, 95 % CI 53.5-300.7). The word 'delve' showed the most significant usage increase (increased ratio=17.0).
Conclusions:
This study is among the first to systematically assess the use of GenAI, specifically ChatGPT, in dental research. We found evidence of the use and growth of ChatGPT in dental research publications. This trend indicates the widespread adoption of GenAI-assisted writing in scientific communication, consistent with other scientific fields. While GenAI can potentially increase productivity and inclusivity, it raises concerns such as bias, inaccuracy, and distortion of academic incentives. Therefore, our findings support the need for clear AI guidelines and standards for academic publishing to ensure responsible use and maintain scientific integrity.
