Patient perspectives on AI in dentistry

Dental Tribune International

Wed. 27 August 2025

save

In June, Dental Tribune International reported on an incisive study that explored the perspectives of dental patients on the ever-increasing role played by artificial intelligence (AI) within the dental clinic. The key takeaway from the research was that, in line with general scientific perspectives, patients overwhelmingly viewed AI as a tool that should complement, but never entirely displace, the real-world skills of the practising dentist. In this interview, we speak with one of the authors of the study, Dr Ruben Pauwels of the Department of Dentistry and Oral Health at Aarhus University in Denmark, to gain deeper insight into some of the study’s key themes.

First, Dr Pauwels, can you provide us with your own perspective on where AI dental imaging diagnostics is currently at? What advantages and disadvantages does this emergent technology bring, and where do you think it is headed?
Development has progressed at breakneck speed over the past few years. AI has evolved from a niche topic in dentistry to arguably the hottest area of innovation in a remarkably short time. That said, we are still in the early stages in many respects, particularly regarding diagnostics. While research studies have shown tremendous promise for AI-supported diagnostics, the efficacy and robustness of currently available tools have yet to be fully demonstrated—and likely need further improvement.

The advantages of AI can largely be summarised as a combination of time and resource savings and improved patient outcomes. In many cases, AI is trained to perform relatively routine but time-consuming tasks. These tasks may not directly affect the patient but can significantly reduce the workload for clinical practitioners. In other cases—especially where AI assists with diagnostic tasks or treatment planning—patient outcomes can be positively affected.

Though AI tools do not present clear disadvantages, they currently have several limitations. For example, many are trained on relatively small, homogeneous datasets, potentially affecting their generalisability. Additionally, some potential risks have been described, such as overtreatment and lack of human oversight, but these concerns remain largely speculative at this stage.

As for the future, opinions vary, but I find it highly likely that AI will become an integral part of the dentist’s toolbox in the coming years. Eventually, it may become second nature to most practitioners. This isn’t the first time a disruptive technology has entered the clinical workspace—though AI does bring some unique considerations.

Dr Ruben Pauwels of the Department of Dentistry and Oral Health at Aarhus University in Denmark and co-author of the study. (Image: Dr Ruben Pauwels)

In terms of the rationale for the study, you mentioned that you saw a gap between clinicians and patients. Are you able to say a little more about this gap and why it is important to close it?
This gap referred specifically to the lack of research assessing patients’ perspectives on AI in clinical practice. When AI first emerged as a hot topic, the focus was primarily on its impact on the medical and dental professions, particularly in specialties like radiology. Several surveys were conducted at various professional levels, revealing a mix of excitement and concern. We chose to focus on patients’ voices in this conversation because patients are likely to play a decisive role in the adoption and acceptance of AI.

“Dental professionals have relied on high-tech equipment for decades, and AI should not be treated too differently from previous innovations.”

Your survey gathered 2,581 responses. Firstly, what kinds of things did you ask patients, and did you notice any regional variations in the responses?
We collected data on general patient characteristics, including demographic information, education level and familiarity with AI in a general sense. Participants were then asked to indicate their level of agreement with 16 statements about the use of AI in dentistry. These statements were loosely categorised under attitudes and beliefs and covered various aspects of clinical AI application, such as human oversight, data privacy and effectiveness.

For many statements, responses across the six contributing centres were generally aligned. However, a few notable regional variations emerged—particularly regarding the perceived need for human oversight. For instance, Brazilian patients appeared more accepting of AI performing radiological tasks autonomously.

What were the main themes that emerged from the study? Do you think that patient perspectives are accurate regarding what is actually occurring in dentistry?
The main takeaway is that patients currently view AI favourably—as a tool that assists rather than replaces the clinical practitioner. This perspective aligns well with how AI is likely to be integrated in the near future, human supervision and ultimate responsibility remaining with the clinician.

Is it possible to keep patients regularly updated about AI in dentistry in such a fast-moving environment?
I do believe that it’s possible to keep patients informed, despite the rapid pace of AI development. Much of the innovation is happening under the hood; at the surface level, changes will be relatively gradual, so dentists won’t need to revise their messaging to patients every few months.

Patients should be informed that AI is, in many ways, just another tool used by dentists. Dental professionals have relied on high-tech equipment for decades, and AI should not be treated too differently from previous innovations.

However, before dentists can effectively communicate the role of AI to patients, they themselves need proper training. This will require dedicated attention in the coming years.