Received: 7 February 2020 Revised: 9 August 2020 Accepted: 12 August 2020

DOI: 10.1002/jdd.12385

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Attitudes and perceptions of dental students towards

artificial intelligence

Emir Yüzbaşıoğlu DDS, PhD1,2

1 Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, Bahçeşehir University, Istanbul, Turkey
2 Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, BAU International University, Batumi, Georgia

Correspondence
Dr. Emir Yüzbaşıoğlu, DDS, PhD, Depart-
ment of Prosthodontics, School of Dental
Medicine, Bahçeşehir University, Çırağan
Caddesi, Osmanpaşa Mektebi Sokak, No:
4–6 Beşiktaş, 34353 Istanbul/TURKEY.
Email: emiryuzbasioglu@icloud.com
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a burning topic and use of AI
in our day-to-day life has increased exponentially. The purpose of this study
was to evaluate the attitudes and perceptions of Turkish dental students
towards AI and to provide information about their opinions to use of AI in
dentistry.
Methods: A 22-question survey was distributed through Google Forms to all
dental students at 9 Turkish dental schools in March 2019. It consisted of var-
ious sections aiming to evaluate the dental students’ knowledge and attitudes
toward AI and possible applications in dentistry. Respondents’ anonymity was
ensured.
Results: A total of 1103 students (650 female, 453 male; mean age was 21.36 ±
1.93 years) responded to the questionnaire for a 21.69% response rate. Of these,
about 48.40% had basic knowledge about AI technologies and 10.6% stated that
they had no information sources about AI. 85.70% agreed that dentistry would
be revolutionized by AI but 28.60% did not agree that AI could replace them-
selves in the near future. In addition, 74.60% and 79.80% of agreed on topics
about AI to be included in undergraduate and postgraduate dental education,
respectively.
Conclusions: Although participants have insufficient knowledge of AI, they are
willing to improve their knowledge in this field. Participants shared an optimistic
views and thought that AI will have a positive impact on dental future prac-
tice. Follow-up surveys and multinational studies should be conducted to further
explore these issues.

KEYWORDS
artificial intelligence, attitudes, awareness, dental student

1 INTRODUCTION affect health services.2 AI is defined as “a field of science

and engineering concerned with the computational under-
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a popular issue. It is at standing of what is commonly called intelligent behav-
the center of current high-tech breakthroughs1 and could ior, and with the creation of artifacts that exhibit such

J Dent Educ. 2020;1–9. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jdd © 2020 American Dental Education Association 1

2 YÜZBAŞIOĞLU et al.
behaviour.”3 The usage of AI has grown exponentially in
our daily lives: we use Google’s intelligent search, iPhone
personal assistant voice recognition and management of
knowledge and tools like Citymapper to help us travel effi-
ciently in cities.
Advances in computer and informatics technolo-
gies have enabled the use of AI technology such as
machine learning and deep learning in health information
systems.4,5 In data-intensive specialties such as radiol-
ogy, pathology, and ophthalmology, AI has been widely
integrated into decision support systems (DSSs).6
Deep learning systems, one of the methods of AI for
various clinical tasks, has been introduced in recent
years.7 They were used effectively in various fields for
image-based automated diagnosis, including lung cancer,8
colorectal polyps,9 prostate cancer,10 hip osteoarthritis,11
bone age assessment,12 caries diagnosis,13 color selection,14
removable partial denture design,15,16 temporomandibu-
lar disorders,17,18 orthognathic treatment,19 maxillary
sinusitis,20 root morphology,21 periodontal diseases,22
oral cancer, 23 periapical lesions, 24 radiolucent lesions,25
cystic lesions,26 cephalometric analysis,27 and debonding
of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing
(CAD/CAM) crowns.28 Future systems are expected
to be increasingly autonomous, going beyond recom-
mending possible clinical actions to perform certain
tasks independently, such as patient trial and screening
references.29,30
Many experts have stated their views on the future of
radiology following the emergence of AI,31,32 and white
papers published by radiological societies and promot-
ing views on this.33,34 Studies have shown that medical
students are not concerned and afraid of being replaced
by AI,35 but the anxiety associated with the “displace-
ment” demotivated some students from taking a specialty
into account.36 There are both good and pessimistic per-
spectives on how AI will affect daily human life. A pes-
simistic view of AI is that in many sectors, AI will replace
humans. Besides, optimistic views that people with AI sup-
port will have more opportunities to take advantage of
future advances. 37
To the best of author’s knowledge, there is no study
about Turkish dental students’ views and attitudes regard-
ing the application of AI in dental practice. Current den-
tal students and young dentists will suffer from AI before
retirement. Therefore, dentists need to be prepared to
use AI effectively as a resource for these changes. To
address this issue, a national multicenter survey among
undergraduate dental students was conducted to assess
their thoughts about AI in dentistry. This study aimed to
evaluate the attitudes and perceptions of Turkish dental
students towards AI and to provide information about their
opinions to use of AI in dentistry.
2 METHODS
The study carried out as a descriptive observational study
among dental students from 9 different dental schools in
Turkey. The research project was approved by Bahçeşehir
University Committee of Research and Publication Ethics
(Document Date & Number: 15/10/2019-E.2454). A web-
based electronic survey using Google Forms was designed
to obtain information about dental students’ knowledge
and attitudes toward AI and possible applications in den-
tistry. A survey comprised of 3 sections, and 22 questions
was developed according literature which was assessed
medical students’ attitudes towards AI.35 For the clarity of
the questions, the survey was evaluated with AI experts
before it was distributed. The survey contents consisted of
a questionnaire on demographics and educational infor-
mation about dental students, knowledge of and attitudes
towards AI, future application areas of AI in dentistry, and
topics of AI in dental education. The first part of the survey
required data (4 questions) on sociodemographic charac-
teristics such as age, gender, attending dental school, and
grade of dental education. In the second part, the partici-
pants were asked 3 questions about (1) “information source
of recent AI applications using in daily life,” (2) “having
a basic knowledge about the working principles of AI,”
and (3) “being aware of the usage of AI in dentistry.” In
the third section, the participants were presented with 15
statements and asked to indicate their level of agreement
(disagree entirely, rather disagree, rather agree, or agree
entirely). For ensuring anonymity, no tracking system was
used. The survey was pretested and refined using similar
group of dental students within 2 weeks. After analyzing
the data, the Cronbach’s was calculated to assess the inter-
nal consistency of survey (= 0.83).
The survey was sent out via e-mail and advertised on
social media to dental students at 9 Turkish universi-
ties. All dental students of participating dental schools
were invited to complete the survey: Istanbul Medipol
University (N = 843), Selçuk University (N = 675),
Ondokuz Mayıs University (N = 664), Çukurova Univer-
sity (N = 594), Karadeniz Technical University (N = 548),
Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University (N = 494), Zonguldak
Bulent Ecevit University (N = 479), Bezmialem Founda-
tion University (N = 437), and Van Yuzuncuyil Univer-
sity (N = 351). Recruitment was conducted between March
1, 2019 and May 30, 2019 via emailed/posted invitations
with anonymous survey links. Outreach efforts were in
accordance with regulations and guidelines specific to
each dental school and comprised the use of class lists,
social networking sites (class Facebook pages, etc.), and
in-person recruitment.
The data were analyzed with IBM SPSS V23. The suit-
ability of quantitative data to normal distribution was
YÜZBAŞIOĞLU et al. 3

T A B L E 1 Comparison of information sources between "having a basic knowledge about the working principle of AI” and “being aware
of the usage of AI in dentistry”
Having a basic knowledge about the Being aware of the usage of AI in
Information sources about AI working principle of AI dentistry
applications using in daly life Yes No P Yes No P
Friends, family, etc 188 (54.2)ab 159 (45.8) <0.001 298 (85.9)a 49 (14.1) <0.001
Neewspaper, magazines, etc 292 (62)a 179 (38) 402 (85.4)a 69 (14.6)
Lectures in university 114 (54.5)ab 95 (45.5) 184 (88)a 25 (12)
Social Media (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) 413 (49.2)b 426 (50.8) 670 (79.9)b 169 (20.1)
a-b: There is no difference between information sources with the same letter. Multiple response question.

T A B L E 2 Comparison "having a basic knowledge about the working principle of AI” and “being aware of the usage of AI in dentistry”
between respondents sex and grade
Having a basic knowledge about the working
principle of AI Being aware of the usage of AI in dentistry
Yes No P Yes No P
Sex
Male 260 (57.4) 193 (42.6) <0.001 355 (78.4) 98 (21.6) 0.729
Female 274 (42.2) 376 (57.8) 515 (79.2) 135 (20.8)
Grade
1st 157 (51.6) 147 (48.4) 0.125 247 (81.3) 57 (18.8) 0.074
2nd 206 (50.6) 201 (49.4) 329 (80.8) 78 (19.2)
3rd 73 (45.3) 88 (54.7) 118 (73.3) 43 (26.7)
4th 61 (45.5) 73 (54.5) 107 (79.9) 27 (20.1)
5th 37 (38.1) 60 (61.9) 69 (71.1) 28 (28.9)

examined with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. One-way
analysis of variance and independent samples t test were
used to compare normally distributed data. Multiple com-
parisons were compared to Tukey HSD. Categorical data
were analyzed with chi-square test. The results of the
analysis were presented as mean ± standard deviation for
quantitative data and categorical data as frequency (per-
cent). The significance level was taken as P < 0.05.
3 RESULTS
During study period 1103 dental students completed the
survey, for a 21.69% response rate. 58.9% of the participants
(n = 650) were women; 41.10% were men (n = 453). The
mean age of dental students was 21.36 ± 1.93 years old.
27.6% of the participants were first grade (n = 304), 36.90%
were second grade (n = 407), 14.60% were third grade (n =
161), 12.10%) were fourth grade (n = 134), and 8.80% were
fifth grade dental students (n = 97). 78.9% of respondents
(n = 870) have heard about AI in dentistry and health sci-
ences. However, 48.40% of participants (n = 534) have had
basic knowledge of about AI technologies (48.40% yes vs.
51.60% no).
When participants are asked where they have access to
information about AI, they stated that they had heard from
the social media such as Facebook/Instagram (76.10%,
n = 839; yes), newspapers/magazines (42.70%, n = 470;
yes). During university lectures, only a smaller number
of participants (18.90%, n = 208; yes) had heard of AI and
from friends/family (31.50% n = 341; yes). However, 10.6%
(n = 117) of the participants reported that they had no
information sources about AI.
There are statistical differences between the informa-
tion sources of participants who have basic knowledge
about the working principle of AI (P < 0.001). The
median scores of “newspapers/magazines” were higher
than “social media such as facebook/instagram.” And also
there are statistical differences between the information
sources of participants who are being aware of the usage
of AI in dentistry (P < 0.001). The median scores of “social
media such as Facebook/Instagram” were lower than
other information sources. The comparison of information
sources, sex and grades between "having a basic knowledge
about the working principle of AI” and “being aware of the
usage of AI in dentistry” are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
While the majority of the participants agreed that den-
tistry would be revolutionized by AI (85.70% agreement),
4 YÜZBAŞIOĞLU et al.

TA B L E 3 Responses to questions about feelings and attitudes towards AI in dentistry

Statistical significance according to
Being
Having aware of
basic the usage
Strongly Strongly knowledge of AI in
disagree Disagree No idea Agree agree Sex Class about AI dentistry
I think artificial 11 (1) 26 (2.4) 121 (11) 513 (46.5) 432 (39.2) <0.001 0.881 <0.001 <0.001
intelligence will lead to
major advances in
dentistry and medicine.
Artificial intelligence can 147 (13.3) 433 (39.3) 208 (18.9) 237 (21.5) 78 (7.1) <0.001 0.504 <0.001 0.279
replace
dentists/physicians in
the future
I find the use of artificial 34 (3.1) 79 (7.2) 156 (14.1) 562 (51) 272 (24.7) 0.002 0.626 <0.001 <0.001
intelligence in dentistry
and medicine exciting.
Artificial intelligence can 112 (10.2) 398 (36.1) 262 (23.8) 258 (23.4) 73 (6.6) 0.001 0.037 0.004 0.269
be used as a “definitive
diagnostic tool” in the
diagnosis of diseases.
Artificial intelligence can 15 (1.4) 105 (9.5) 241 (21.9) 597 (54.2) 144 (13.1) <0.001 0.104 <0.001 0.040
be used as a “prognostic
tool” to predict the
course of a disease and
determine whether
there is a chance of
recovery.
Artificial intelligence can 8 (0.7) 32 (2.9) 134 (12.1) 681 (61.7) 248 (22.5) 0.003 0.75 0.002 <0.001
be used for radiographic
diagnosis of tooth caries
Artificial intelligence can 10 (0.9) 67 (6.1) 203 (18.4) 625 (56.7) 198 (18) 0.006 0.002 0.005 <0.001
be used in the
radiographic diagnosis
of periodontal diseases.
Artificial intelligence can 15 (1.4) 100 (9.1) 225 (20.4) 603 (54.7) 160 (14.5) 0.004 0.052 0.076 <0.001
be used in the diagnosis
of soft tissue lesions of
the mouth
Artificial intelligence can 11 (1) 40 (3.6) 111 (10.1) 626 (56.8) 315 (28.6) <0.001 0.917 <0.001 <0.001
be used in
3-dimensional implant
positioning and
planning
Artificial intelligence can 18 (1.6) 98 (8.9) 165 (15) 631 (57.2) 191 (17.3) <0.001 0.7 <0.001 <0.001
be used as a “treatment
planning tool” in
diagnosis and treatment
planning in dentistry
Artificial intelligence can 20 (1.8) 78 (7.1) 171 (15.5) 652 (59.1) 182 (16.5) <0.001 0.786 <0.001 <0.001
be used as a “quality
control tool” to assess
the success of
treatments.
(Continues)
YÜZBAŞIOĞLU et al. 5

TA B L E 3 (Continued)
Statistical significance according to
Being
Having aware of
basic the usage
Strongly Strongly knowledge of AI in
disagree Disagree No idea Agree agree Sex Class about AI dentistry
Artificial intelligence can 12 (1.1) 55 (5) 180 (16.3) 656 (59.5) 200 (18.1) 0.001 0.049 <0.001 0.001
be used in the
radiographic diagnosis
of pathologies in the
jaws.
Artificial intelligence can 16 (1.5) 75 (6.8) 266 (24.1) 575 (52.1) 171 (15.5) <0.001 0.038 0.006 <0.001
be used in forensic
dentistry
Artificial intelligence 28 (2.5) 69 (6.3) 183 (16.6) 473 (42.9) 350 (31.7) 0.009 0.446 <0.001 <0.001
applications should be
part of undergraduate
dental training
Artificial intelligence 16 (1.5) 48 (4.4) 159 (14.4) 495 (44.9) 385 (34.9) <0.001 0.335 <0.001 <0.001
applications should be
part of postgraduate
dental training

half of the participants did not agree that AI could replace
themselves in the near future and only a few parts of par-
ticipants agreed (28.60% agreement). Three-fourths of par-
ticipants were somewhat excited by use of AI in dentistry
(75.70% agreement). It was widely agreed that AI could be
used as a “prognostic tool” to predict the course of a dis-
ease and determine whether there is a chance of recovery
(67.30% agreement vs. 10.90% disagreement), radiographic
diagnosis of tooth caries (84.20% agreement vs. 3.60% dis-
agreement), radiographic diagnosis of periodontal diseases
(74.70% agreement vs. 7.00% disagreement), diagnosis of
soft tissue lesions of the mouth (69.20% agreement vs.
10.50% disagreement), 3D implant positioning and plan-
ning (85.40% agreement vs. 4.60% disagreement), “treat-
ment planning tool” in diagnosis and treatment planning
(75.40% agreement vs. 10.50% disagreement), “quality con-
trol tool” to assess the success of treatments (75.60% agree-
ment vs. 8.90% disagreement), and radiographic diagnosis
of pathologies in the jaws (77.60% agreement vs. 6.10% dis-
agreement) and in forensic dentistry (67.60% agreement vs.
8.30% disagreement). But there was a certain disagreement
that AI could be used as a “definitive diagnostic tool" in
the diagnosis of diseases (46.30% disagreement vs. 30.00%
agreement). In addition, 74.60% and 79.80% of participants
agreed on topics about AI to be included in undergraduate
and postgraduate dental education, respectively.
Questions were asked about attitudes towards AI in
dentistry. There was a statistically significant difference
between gender and “being aware of the usage of AI in
dentistry” and with several statements which indicates
the level of agreement about attitudes towards AI in den-
tistry. Responses to questions about feelings and attitudes
towards AI in dentistry are shown in Table 3.
When comparing the mean scores of statements about
attitudes towards AI in dentistry, except for the sec-
ond statement (AI can replace dentists/physicians in the
future), there was no statistically significant gender dif-
ference. Besides, there was statistically significant differ-
ences between grades and various statements about feel-
ings and attitudes towards AI such as using AI for “prog-
nostic tool,” “radiographic diagnosis of periodontal dis-
eases,” and “diagnosis of soft tissue lesions of the mouth.”
The mean score of the questions about feelings and atti-
tudes towards AI in dentistry according to grades and sex
are shown in Table 4.
4 DISCUSSION
AI inevitably will have a major impact on the next gener-
ation of medicine and diagnostic radiology.39,40 After con-
cerns about the development and future of AI began to be
talked about at various scientific meetings, radiologists, in
particular, began to worry about their professional career
in the future. However, apart from these claims that have
no scientific basis, no survey has been conducted among
undergraduate dental students on their attitudes towards
AI in dentistry.
 6

TA B L E 4 Mean score of the questions about feelings and attitudes towards AI in dentistry according to the grades and sex
Grades Sex
1st grade 2nd grade 3rd grade 4th grade 5th grade P Male Female P
I think artificial intelligence will lead to major 4.17 ± 0.87 4.23 ± 0.77 4.22 ± 0.78 4.15 ± 0.84 4.26 ± 0.71 0.759 4.25 ± 0.89 4.17 ± 0.74 0.091
advances in dentistry and medicine.
Artificial intelligence can replace dentists/physicians 2.71 ± 1.2 2.75 ± 1.14 2.61 ± 1.18 2.7 ± 1.09 2.57 ± 1.13 0.580 2.61 ± 1.23 2.76 ± 1.1 0.044
in the future
I find the use of artificial intelligence in dentistry and 3.78 ± 1.07 3.88 ± 0.94 3.98 ± 0.91 3.87 ± 0.93 3.94 ± 0.88 0.301 3.87 ± 1.06 3.87 ± 0.9 .895
medicine exciting.
Artificial intelligence can be used as a “definitive 2.88 ± 1.11ab 2.89 ± 1.13a 2.66 ± 1.1ab 2.67 ± 1.04b 2.6 ± 1.05b 0.016 2.8 ± 1.19 2.8 ± 1.05 0.980
diagnostic tool” in the diagnosis of diseases.
Artificial intelligence can be used as a “prognostic tool” 3.57 ± 0.9 3.67 ± 0.85 3.78 ± 0.89 3.78 ± 0.81 3.76 ± 0.85 0.047 3.64 ± 0.98 3.71 ± 0.78 0.190
to predict the course of a disease and determine
whether there is a chance of recovery.
Artificial intelligence can be used for radiographic 4.03 ± 0.77 4.04 ± 0.68 4.04 ± 0.77 3.98 ± 0.73 3.97 ± 0.7 0.832 4.05 ± 0.8 4.01 ± 0.67 0.355
diagnosis of tooth caries
Artificial intelligence can be used in the radiographic 3.89 ± 0.83a 3.94 ± 0.7ab 3.78 ± 0.87ab 3.66 ± 0.91b 3.66 ± 0.92ab 0.001 3.89 ± 0.87 3.82 ± 0.77 0.192
diagnosis of periodontal diseases.
Artificial intelligence can be used in the diagnosis of 3.81 ± 0.87ab 3.77 ± 0.81a 3.65 ± 0.92ab 3.53 ± 0.93ab 3.58 ± 0.89b 0.005 3.75 ± 0.93 3.7 ± 0.82 0.325
soft tissue lesions of the mouth
Artificial intelligence can be used in 3-dimensional 4.03 ± 0.87 4.09 ± 0.74 4.1 ± 0.78 4.15 ± 0.73 4.1 ± 0.76 0.606 4.13 ± 0.87 4.05 ± 0.71 0.089
implant positioning and planning
Artificial intelligence can be used as a “treatment 3.81 ± 0.91 3.81 ± 0.9 3.75 ± 0.87 3.8 ± 0.84 3.77 ± 0.84 0.956 3.83 ± 0.97 3.78 ± 0.82 0.348
planning tool” in diagnosis and treatment planning
in dentistry
Artificial intelligence can be used as a “quality control 3.85 ± 0.86 3.86 ± 0.81 3.78 ± 0.86 3.7 ± 0.89 3.71 ± 0.93 0.217 3.85 ± 0.94 3.79 ± 0.79 0.233
tool” to assess the success of treatments.
Artificial intelligence can be used in the radiographic 3.89 ± 0.84 3.95 ± 0.72 3.87 ± 0.78 3.83 ± 0.85 3.71 ± 0.85 0.084 3.89 ± 0.87 3.88 ± 0.74 0.779
diagnosis of pathologies in the jaws.
Artificial intelligence can be used in forensic dentistry 3.72 ± 0.91 3.8 ± 0.81 3.68 ± 0.83 3.67 ± 0.82 3.67 ± 0.93 0.354 3.7 ± 0.96 3.76 ± 0.78 0.345
Artificial intelligence applications should be part of 3.92 ± 1.07 4 ± 0.91 3.84 ± 1 4.01 ± 0.96 3.93 ± 0.97 0.469 3.96 ± 1.06 3.94 ± 0.92 0.733
undergraduate dental training
Artificial intelligence applications should be part of 4.05 ± 0.95 4.04 ± 0.87 4.11 ± 0.86 4.11 ± 0.92 4.2 ± 0.77 0.543 4.05 ± 0.99 4.09 ± 0.81 0.521
postgraduate dental training
a-b: There is no difference between grades/sex with the same letter.
YÜZBAŞIOĞLU et al.
YÜZBAŞIOĞLU et al.
This is the first report on attitudes and perceptions of
Turkish dental students towards AI. The results indicate
that most of the dental students are aware of AI but the
basic knowledge about working principles are low. The
dental student believe that AI will revolutionize the future
of dentistry. Although they are excited by the use of AI in
dentistry, respondents did not agree that AI could replace
themselves in the near future as in a Korean study.41
28.6% of the participants believed that dentists would
be substituted by AI, according to the results of this study
which are not consistent with previous studies. In a sur-
vey conducted with 4135 participants, it was found that
the public is about twice as likely to express worry (72%)
than enthusiasm (33%) about a future in which robots
and computers can do many human jobs.35 Unlike other
professions, it is obvious that AI technology will have
difficulties in replacing physicians or dentists. There are
some challenges, such as AI cannot engage in high-level
discussions with patients to gain trust, reassure them,
express empathy43 and although sensors that gather valu-
able information to assist with diagnosis, physicians will
still be required for interpretation in ambiguous situations
to incorporate medical history, perform physical examina-
tions and encourage further discussion.44
Although scientific studies have been increasing, the
results of this study demonstrate clearly that Turkish den-
tal students continue to lack education and knowledge of
AI. These results show once again the interest of dental stu-
dents in new technologies such as AI and their willingness
to learn. Participants emphasized that the basic working
principles of AI should be taught in dentistry, as indicated
in other studies in the literature.35,45
Participants also noted that their information was pro-
vided more by social media than by academics. However,
most educated students were also the least afraid of this
new technology. It suggests that there is a lot of room for
undergraduate students to teach the fundamental princi-
ples of AI. It suggests there is plenty of room for teach-
ing the basic principles of AI to undergraduate students.46
In Turkey, dentists there had previously been no academic
teaching on AI, but 2019 would be a crucial year as several
academic meetings were organized for the first time.
Automatic lesion detection and measurement capabili-
ties, which are to be verified by the physician or dentist,
are most expected characteristics of AI-based applications.
Many AI systems have been developed with deep learn-
ing algorithms to identify lesions and to perform measure-
ments, which is critical for caries diagnosis.13 The partic-
ipants of this study thought AI technology would be used
in radiographic diagnosis of tooth caries and periodontal
diseases.
However, it should be stated that there are some limi-
tations of this study. This survey conducted only in Turk-
7
ish universities. Therefore different educational curricu-
lum and teaching strategies in different countries should
effect the results. Additionally, the selected participants
may not have generally been a good representation of den-
tal students. Moreover, as we examined only the attitude of
undergraduate dental students, it could be stated that doc-
torate student and residency students or even more senior
dentists do not share the students’ rather optimistic views.
Participants were not asked background questions about
how technically they understood AI technology. Each par-
ticipant might have had different AI conceptualizations.
Lastly, instead of AI experts, the survey was created by a
dentist with their supports.
5 CONCLUSION
This survey found that Turkish students felt it would be
useful to apply the AI to dentistry. Respondents decided
that diagnosis and treatment planning were the fields
of dentistry where AI would be most useful. To order
to explore these problems further, follow-up surveys and
multicenter research should be carried out. On the basis of
these results, the lectures and seminars must be organized
to ensure that dental students gain a better understanding
of AI and ultimately help them play a fully conscious and
active role in the development, implementation and use of
AI tools in dentistry.
AC K N OW L E D G M E N T S
The author declare that there is no conflict of interest
regarding the publication of this article.
ORCID
Emir Yüzbaşıoğlu DDS, PhD https://orcid.org/0000-
0001-5348-6954
REFERENCES
1. Morris KC, Schlenoff C, Srinivasan V. A remarkable resurgence
of artificial intelligence and its impact on automation and auton-
omy. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng. 2017;14:407-409.
2. Hinton G. Deep learning: a technology with the potential to
transform health care. JAMA. 2018;320:1101.
3. Shapiro SC. Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence. 2nd ed., Vols.
1 and 2. New York: Wiley; 1992
4. Miotto R, Wang F, Wang S, Jiang X, Dudley JT. Deep learning
for healthcare: review, opportunities and challenges. Brief Bioin-
form. 2018;19(6):1236-1246.
5. Xiao C, Choi E, Sun J. Opportunities and challenges in develop-
ing deep learning models using electronic health records data:
a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(10):1419-
1428.
6. Yu KH, Kohane IS. Framing the challenges of artificial intelli-
gence in medicine. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28:238-241.
8 YÜZBAŞIOĞLU et al.
7. Song Q, Zhao L, Luo X, Dou X. Using deep learning for clas-
sification of lung nodules on computed tomography images.
J Healthc Eng. 2017;2017:1-7.
8. Wang H, Zhou Z, Li Y, et al. Comparison of machine learning
methods for classifying mediastinal lymph node metastasis of
non-small cell lung cancer from 18F-FDG PET/CT images. EJN-
MMI Res. 2017;7:11.
9. Byrne MF, Chapados N, Soudan F, et al. Real-time differen-
tiation of adenomatous and hyperplastic diminutive colorec-
tal polyps during analysis of unaltered videos of standard
colonoscopy using a deep learning model. Gut. 2017;2017:2017-
314547.
10. Wang X, Yang W, Weinreb J, et al. Searching for prostate cancer
by fully automated magnetic resonance imaging classification:
deep learning versus non-deep learning. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):15415.
11. Xue Y, Zhang R, Deng Y, Chen K, Jiang T. A preliminary
examination of the diagnostic value of deep learning in hip
osteoarthritis. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0178992.
12. Lee H, Tajmir S, Lee J, et al. Fully automated deep learning sys-
tem for bone age assessment. J Digit Imaging. 2017;30(4):427-441.
13. Lee JH, Kim DH, Jeong SN, Choi SH. Detection and diagnosis of
dental caries using a deep learning-based convolutional neural
network algorithm. J Dent. 2018;77:106-111.
14. Wei J, Peng M, Li Q, Wang Y. Evaluation of a novel computer
color matching system based on the improved back-propagation
neural network model. J Prosthodontics. 2018;27:775-783.
15. Chen Q, Wu J, Li S, et al. An ontology-driven, case-based clinical
decision support model for removable partial denture design. Sci
Rep. 2016;6:27855.
16. Hammond P, Davenport JC, Fitzpatrick FJ. Logic-based
integrity constraints and the design of dental prostheses. Artif
Intell Med. 1993;5(5):5431-5446.
17. Radke JC, Ketcham R, Glassman B, Kull R. Artificial neural net-
work learns to differentiate normal TMJS and nonreducing dis-
placed disks after training on incisor-point chewing movements.
Cranio. 2003;21(4):259-264.
18. Bas B, Ozgonenel O, Ozden B, Bekcioglu B, Bulut E, Kurt M.
Use of artificial neural network in differentiation of subgroups
of temporomandibular internal derangements: a preliminary
study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70(1):51-9.
19. Patcas R, Bernini DAJ, Volokitin A, Agustsson E, Rothe R, Tim-
ofte R. Applying artificial intelligence to assess the impact of
orthognathic treatment on facial attractiveness and estimated
age. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;48(1):77-83.
20. Murata M, Ariji Y, Ohashi Y, et al. Deep-learning classification
using convolutional neural network for evaluation of maxillary
sinusitis on panoramic radiography. Oral Radiol. 2019;35(3):301-
307.
21. Hiraiwa T, Ariji Y, Fukuda M, et al. A deep-learning artificial
intelligence system for assessment of root morphology of the
mandibular first molar on panoramic radiography. Dentomax-
illofac Radiol. 2019;48(3):20180218.
22. Lee JH, Kim DH, Jeong SN, Choi SH. Diagnosis and prediction
of periodontally compromised teeth using a deep learning-based
convolutional neural network algorithm. J Periodontal Implant
Sci. 2018;48:114-123.
23. Ariji Y, Fukuda M, Kise Y, et al. Contrast-enhanced computed
tomography image assessment of cervical lymph node metasta-
sis in patients with oral cancer by using a deep learning system
of artificial intelligence. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral
Radiol. 2019;127(5):458-463.
24. Ekert T, Krois J, Meinhold L, et al. Deep learning for the radio-
graphic detection of apical lesions. J Endod. 2019;45(7):917-922.
25. Ariji Y, Yanashita Y, Kutsuna S, et al. Automatic detection
and classification of radiolucent lesions in the mandible on
panoramic radiographs using a deep learning object detec-
tion technique. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol.
2019;128(4):424-430.
26. Lee JH, Kim DH, Jeong SN. Diagnosis of cystic lesions using
panoramic and cone beam computed tomographic images based
on deep learning neural network. Oral Dis. 2020;26(1):152-158.
27. Kunz F, Stellzig-Eisenhauer A, Zeman F, Boldt J. Artificial intel-
ligence in orthodontics: evaluation of a fully automated cephalo-
metric analysis using a customized convolutional neural net-
work. J Orofac Orthop. 2020;81(1):52-68.
28. Yamaguchi S, Lee C, Karaer O, Ban S, Mine A, Imazato S. Pre-
dicting the debonding of CAD/CAM composite resin crowns
with AI. J Dent Res. 2019;98(11):1234-1238.
29. Yu K-H, Beam AL, Kohane IS. Artificial intelligence in health-
care. Nat Biomed Eng. 2018;2(10):719-731.
30. Challen R, Denny J, Pitt M, Gompels L, Edwards T, Tsaneva-
Atanasova K. Artificial intelligence, bias and clinical safety. BMJ
Qual Saf. 2019;28(3):231-237.
31. Moehrle A. “Radiology” is going away. . . and that’s okay: titles
change, a profession evolves. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15:499-500.
32. Schier R. Artificial intelligence and the practice of radiology: an
alternative view. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(7):1004-1007.
33. Tang A, Tam R, Cadrin-Chênevert A, et al. Canadian association
of radiologists white paper on artificial intelligence in radiology.
Can Assoc Radiol J. 2018;69:120-135.
34. Beregi JP, Zins M, Masson J-P, et al. Radiology and artificial
intelligence: an opportunity for our specialty. Diagn Interv Imag-
ing. 2018;99(11):677-678.
35. Pinto Dos Santos D, Giese D, Brodehl S, et al. Medical students’
attitude towards artificial intelligence: a multicentre survey. Eur
Radiol. 2019;29(4):1640-1646.
36. Gong B, Nugent JP, Guest W, et al. Influence of artificial intel-
ligence on Canadian medical students’ preference for radiol-
ogy specialty: a national survey study. Acad Radiol. 2018;26:566-
577.
37. Johnston SC. Anticipating and training the physician of the
future: the importance of caring in an age of artificial intelli-
gence. Acad Med. 2018;93(8):1105-1106.
38. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch
Psychol. 1932;22 (140):1-55.
39. de Bruijne M. Machine learning approaches inmedical image
analysis: from detection to diagnosis. Med Image Anal.
2016;33:94-97.
40. Syeda-Mahmood T. Role of big data and machine learning
in diagnostic decision support in radiology. J Am Coll Radiol.
2018;15 (3 Pt B):569-576.
41. Oh S, Kim JH, Choi SW, Lee HJ, Hong J, Kwon SH. Physician
confidence in artificial intelligence: an online mobile survey.
J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(3):e12422.
42. Smith A, Anderson M. Automation in everyday life. Pew
Research Center Web site. http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/
10/04/automation-in-everyday-life. Published October 4 2017.
Accessed December 30, 2019.
YÜZBAŞIOĞLU et al.
43. Inkster B, Sarda S, Subramanian V. An empathy-driven, con-
versational artificial intelligence agent (Wysa) for digital men-
tal well-being: real-world data evaluation mixed-methods study.
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018;6(11):e12106.
44. Krittanawong C. The rise of artificial intelligence and the
uncertain future for physicians. Eur J Intern Med. 2018;48:e13-
e14.
45. Gallix B, Chong J. Artificial intelligence in radiology:
who’s afraid of the big bad wolf? Eur Radiol. 2019;29:1637-
1639.
9
46. Uzuner O, Mailoa J, Ryan R, Sibanda T. Semantic rela-
tions for problem-oriented medical records. Artif Intell Med.
2010;50(2):63-73.
How to cite this article: Yüzbaşıoğlu E. Attitudes
and perceptions of dental students towards
artificial intelligence. J Dent Educ. 2020;1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jdd.12385