AI in the Chair: A Multi‐Centre Study of Doctor AI Answering Orthodontic Patient Questions

Objectives: To investigate the performance of Doctor AI in answering frequently asked questions (FAQs) and to analyse the advantages and potential limitations. Methods: Twenty validated FAQs were entered into ChatGPT‐4 and DeepSeek‐v3 to compare the responses generated by the two models and their unmodified responses were assessed by expert panels from English‐, Chinese‐, and bilingual‐speaking institutions. Responses were rated across six dimensions: accuracy, comprehensiveness, detail, relevance, readability, and logic. Results: Both AI models generated high‐quality answers, scoring above 8/10 across all dimensions. ChatGPT outperformed DeepSeek in relevance (9.01 ± 0.33 vs. 8.69 ± 0.42; p = 0.005), while DeepSeek scored higher in comprehensiveness (9.21 ± 0.31 vs. 8.27 ± 0.65; p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in accuracy, detail, readability, or logic ( p > 0.100 for all). The word counts generated by ChatGPT (243.20 ± 58.27) and DeepSeek (257.35 ± 44.65) across 20 FAQs were similar ( p = 0.223). Conclusions: Doctor AI such as ChatGPT and DeepSeek are capable of delivering high‐quality responses to orthodontic FAQs. ChatGPT may provide more relevant answers, while DeepSeek offers greater comprehensiveness. Combining their outputs may improve patient understanding, but AI‐generated information should supplement, not replace, guidance from qualified orthodontic professionals.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Published
2026-03-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/snz2.70035
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

AI in the Chair: A Multi‐Centre Study of Doctor AI Answering Orthodontic Patient Questions

Olivia Liong, Xianglong Han, Simon Guan, Ruijie Zhang et al.
Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

AI in the Chair: A Multi‐Centre Study of Doctor AI Answering Orthodontic Patient Questions

Olivia Liong, Xianglong Han, Simon Guan, Ruijie Zhang, Li Mei, Leo Liu, Melody Liu, Yu Li, Kun Chen
article en

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the performance of Doctor AI in answering frequently asked questions (FAQs) and to analyse the advantages and potential limitations. Methods: Twenty validated FAQs were entered into ChatGPT‐4 and DeepSeek‐v3 to compare the responses generated by the two models and their unmodified responses were assessed by expert panels from English‐, Chinese‐, and bilingual‐speaking institutions. Responses were rated across six dimensions: accuracy, comprehensiveness, detail, relevance, readability, and logic. Results: Both AI models generated high‐quality answers, scoring above 8/10 across all dimensions. ChatGPT outperformed DeepSeek in relevance (9.01 ± 0.33 vs. 8.69 ± 0.42; p = 0.005), while DeepSeek scored higher in comprehensiveness (9.21 ± 0.31 vs. 8.27 ± 0.65; p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in accuracy, detail, readability, or logic ( p > 0.100 for all). The word counts generated by ChatGPT (243.20 ± 58.27) and DeepSeek (257.35 ± 44.65) across 20 FAQs were similar ( p = 0.223). Conclusions: Doctor AI such as ChatGPT and DeepSeek are capable of delivering high‐quality responses to orthodontic FAQs. ChatGPT may provide more relevant answers, while DeepSeek offers greater comprehensiveness. Combining their outputs may improve patient understanding, but AI‐generated information should supplement, not replace, guidance from qualified orthodontic professionals.

Journal of the Royal Society of New ZealandVol. 56(2)
Sichuan University (CN), Stomatology Hospital (CN), IS practice (BE), University of Otago (NZ)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.