Actionable companion · Assessment & reasoning

From AI evidence to responsible practice: Are ChatGPT, My AI Snapchat, and Metaverse used by dental students as reliable sources of dental education?

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide, separate from the original research. Proposed actions are not findings or recommendations attributed to the source authors. No independent peer review of this guide is asserted.

Read original paper Search paper agent CC BY 4.0

Evidence and context

Title and abstract screening; stage labels describe reported settings, not verified numerical ages. Design labels require full-text appraisal. Reported stage(s): Higher education. Health-professions education findings do not establish effectiveness in K–12 classrooms.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the linked source license:

A profound understanding of dental students' use of artificial intelligence (AI) applications and their perceptions is essential for promoting responsible adoption and guiding integration into dental education. Aim This study evaluated dental students' perceptions, usage patterns, and trust in ChatGPT, Snapchat's My AI, and the Metaverse as educational tools. Materials and methods A cross-sectional online survey was administered to undergraduate dental students at RAK College of Dental Sciences, United Arab Emirates, between February and May 2024. The questionnaire comprised 29 questions organized into five sections. The questions were formulated as multiple-choice questions. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Pearson's chi-square tests with post-hoc adjusted standardized residuals (ASRs) and Bonferroni corrections examined categorical associations. Ordinal logistic regression assessed predictors of AI awareness, and paired-samples t-tests with Cohen's d compared trust in ChatGPT vs. Snapchat AI. Results The response rate was 57%, of which 70% were females. Self-rated awareness of AI increased across academic years, with fifth-year students rating their awareness score as 4 ± 0.9 out of 5, compared to 3 ± 1.4 in the first year. Ordinal regression showed no significant effects of year, gender, or their interaction (p > 0.19). ChatGPT was the most used tool (81.5%), followed by grammar correction tools (75%) and Snapchat AI (74.4%), while Metaverse use was limited (28.6%). Chi-square analyses confirmed significantly greater use of ChatGPT, Grammarly, and Snapchat AI compared with Metaverse (p < 0.001). Fourth-year students most often used AI for academic or clinical purposes (41.7%). Educational potential was endorsed by 78% of students, while privacy and data security were the predominant concerns (78%). Compared with Snapchat AI, ChatGPT was significantly more often used for education, preferred for quick responses, and more frequently associated with positive beliefs about future learning. Paired-samples t-tests demonstrated consistently higher trust in ChatGPT across all academic years, with moderate-to-large effect sizes (Cohen's d = 0.67–0.91; p < 0.01). Conclusions Dental students reported widespread adoption and higher trust in ChatGPT compared to other AI tools. While recognizing its educational potential, concerns about accuracy and privacy underscore the need for integrating AI literacy and evidence-based evaluation into dental curricula.

What kind of evidence is this?

Supporting AI learning science · Survey / observational study

Stage: Higher education. Screening labels describe reported context and study-design language. They are not a risk-of-bias rating or proof of effectiveness for an age band.

Study methods · source passage

A comprehensive questionnaire was developed in the English language following a thorough analysis of questions used in previous studies with similar objectives (15). The formulation process adhered to specific guidelines for survey reporting (16) and was overseen by experts in the field. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the proposal was approved by the Institutional Review Board (RAKCODS-REC−18−2023/24-UG). The self-administered questionnaire was hosted on Google Forms and distributed along with a cover letter clearly outlining the study's objectives and the measures taken to safeguard participant anonymity. To ensure the clarity, validity, and effectiveness of the questionnaire, it underwent rigorous evaluation by two dental professors. Participants were assured of their anonymity in the survey, and the invitation explicitly stated that there were no incentives or penalties associated with participation in the study. Before the main survey was conducted, a pilot test was carried out on a small group of students to assess the clarity, feasibility, and applicability of the questionnaire. The link to the Google Form was emailed to all dental students twice between February and May 2024.

Limitations and uncertainty · source passage

Despite the advancements of ChatGPT, it is critical to recognize its limitations (27). While it is a powerful tool for synthesizing information and enhancing learning experiences, it operates based on patterns learned from training data and lacks the ability to critically evaluate or verify information (28). This absence of inherent reliability, particularly in clinical, medical, or scientific contexts, poses a potential risk to dental students who might use it as a primary source of information. Non-evidence-based or inaccurate content can inadvertently influence their learning and decision-making processes, emphasizing the need for cautious and supplementary use alongside validated resources (29, 30). For dental educators, this underscores the importance of teaching students to critically evaluate AI-generated content and triangulate it against validated sources.

Design the system before the pilot

Use this study to inform a learning mechanism or implementation question. It is not direct evidence that autonomous agents improve learning. Keep the proposed agent behavior separate from what the source actually tested.

Use common rubrics, blind scoring where feasible and a fresh unaided reasoning task. Document permissible assistance and avoid treating AI-detector scores as proof of misconduct.

A 90-day district pilot

Days 1–15 · Appraise. Have the curriculum lead and a teacher read the methods and limitations. Record the study design, sample, comparator, outcomes and evidence gaps. Define a local question that the study can help inform.
Days 16–30 · Design. Choose one disciplinary task. Require a first attempt, a documented AI consultation, a critique of the output and an independent explanation. Align the comparison group and scoring rubric with the same objective. Name an accountable owner and set the baseline, success threshold and budget before implementation.
Days 31–60 · Test. Start with a small voluntary cohort, preserve an accessible non-AI route and require teacher review. Use synthetic or de-identified examples; approve data handling and tool terms through district processes.
Days 61–90 · Decide. Blind-score reasoning and accuracy on a new task without AI. Distinguish model examination scores, student perceptions and actual learner gains; only the last directly tests educational benefit. Compare with baseline, document uncertainty and stop or revise if learning worsens, access is unequal or critical errors persist.

The board decision brief

Report the learning problem, evidence quality, participating population, total cost including review time, measured benefit, errors, access differences and remaining uncertainties. Make a dated recommendation to stop, revise or expand. A positive perception survey alone does not establish learning improvement.

Attribution and reuse

Mohamed Ahmed Elsayed; Kusai Baroudi; Mohamed Anas Patni; Mahmoud Mohamed Elwakil; Nallan CSK Chaitanya; Mohmed Isaqali Karobari. Are ChatGPT, My AI Snapchat, and Metaverse used by dental students as reliable sources of dental education?. Frontiers in Dental Medicine (2026-01-06). https://doi.org/10.3389/fdmed.2025.1673536

Companion prepared 2026-11-01. Original authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract is an attributed source extract; the implementation plan is new AI-assisted editorial material, offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license. This guide has not undergone independent peer review.