Many dental students may have a positive view of artificial intelligence (AI), specifically when it’s used in specialties like endodontics and periodontics, according to a study recently published in BMC Medical Education.
However, some students remain concerned about its accuracy, ethical issues, and integration difficulties, the authors wrote.
“Postgraduate dental students generally perceive AI positively, recognizing its potential to enhance care,” wrote the authors, led by Susan Sarhan of Ain Shams University in Cairo (BMC Med Educ, June 23, 2025, Vol. 25, 856).
The cross-sectional study analyzed responses from an online, self-administered questionnaire distributed to 744 postgraduate dental students across universities in Egypt during the 2023-2024 academic year. The survey consisted of 19 closed-ended questions to gather straightforward responses, they wrote.
The questionnaire was divided into sections covering demographics; perceptions of AI's role in dental practice; familiarity and experience with AI tools; and concerns about accuracy, ethics, and clinical integration. The survey also aimed to identify gaps in AI education and highlighted skepticism surrounding its reliability and impact on professional practice.
Most participants (79.6%) reported never using AI, while 17.6% had limited experience with it for less than a year. Despite low usage, 58.6% believed AI will usher in a new era in dentistry compared to 26.5% who disagreed and 14.9% who were unsure.
Concerns about AI were widespread, with 83.2% expressing doubt about the accuracy of AI-generated information. Other concerns included overdependence on technology (78.1%), loss of originality in research (59.3%), and the lack of clinical evidence supporting AI applications (77.4%), they wrote.
Younger participants and Bachelor of Dental Surgery holders were significantly more optimistic and more likely to use AI tools (p < 0.001), while PhD holders remained more skeptical of AI’s role in healthcare. Endodontics had the highest long-term AI usage (52.4% reporting use for over a year; p = 0.006), and both education level and specialty were found to significantly influence perceptions of AI’s reliability and impact on research (p < 0.05).
Nevertheless, the study had limitations. The findings may not apply broadly to other populations or clinical settings because of contextual variations and potential sampling bias, the authors wrote.
“To bridge the perception-practice gap, future efforts should prioritize awareness campaigns, focused instructional sessions, and strong clinical validations,” they concluded.
