Research Information System
Turkish Endodontic Journal, vol.11, no.1, pp.11-18, 2026 (Scopus)
Purpose: The present study aims to compare the radiographic technical quality of root canal fillings performed on 3D-printed resin and extracted natural teeth, and to examine the agreement between endodontist educator assessment and analysis performed by an artificial intelligence-based chatbot (ChatGPT-4o). Methods: After theoretical training and practical demonstration, 3rd-year undergraduate students performed root canal treatment on 108 printed resin teeth and 108 extracted natural teeth. In the radiographic examination, parameters such as root canal filling length, filling continuity, apical transport, perforation, and instrument fracture were evaluated by both an experienced instructor and ChatGPT4o. The technical quality of root canal filling and all procedural errors were compared between the printed teeth and extracted teeth groups using the chi-square test. Interexaminer reliability was measured between the instructor and ChatGPT-4o. Results: Regarding overall root canal quality, 34% of extracted teeth were acceptable and 66% were unacceptable, while 45% of printed teeth were acceptable and 55% were unacceptable. There is no statistically significant difference between the acceptability rates of extracted teeth vs printed teeth (p>0.05). It was observed that the extracted teeth had more under-filled canals and fewer adequately filled canals than expected, whereas printed teeth were more likely to be adequately filled (p<0.05). There was no difference between sample types having adequate or inadequate filling continuity (p>0.05). Apical transportation, perforation, and instrument fracture rates did not differ significantly between extracted and printed teeth. Cohen’s kappa value is 0.210, and the inter-observer agreement was 62%. These results indicated low agreement between the instructor and ChtaGPT-4o significantly (p<0.05). Conclusion: The overall quality of the canal filling applied by undergraduate students on 3D-printed resin and extracted teeth was similar. ChatGPT-4o evaluation did not demonstrate a high level of agreement with the endodontist instructor.