AI claims for dentistry, sorted. We put each claim next to what we could check, list the limits, and link every source. Sponsors are labeled, and no one buys a ranking.
Atmosphere photo · Christopher Gower / Unsplash · not a clinic photo.
A randomized trial found AI support raised dentists' sensitivity for enamel caries on bitewings, and also raised invasive treatment decisions. We set that next to two FDA clearances and the vendors' own launch numbers.
Short answerPartly. Better at finding early enamel lesions in one trial, with a real risk of more invasive treatment.
“AI can increase dentists’ diagnostic accuracy, mainly via increasing their sensitivity for detecting enamel lesions, but may also increase invasive therapy decisions.”
Why this is on the front page. “Finds more” and “helps patients more” are different claims. Every case here keeps them apart: what the seller says, what we could check, and what is still unknown.
For these physicians, mostly yes: less after-hours charting, and heavy users gained the most. The evidence we read did not test transfer to the dental chair.
Unclear. The call and booking counts are believable signals. The dollar figures are vendor-calculated, with no baseline, no control period, and no cancellation data.
Directionally encouraging. These are two operators' own numbers from a trade roundtable, with no baseline or denominator published.
Every case is tagged with the strongest kind of source we used. A higher rung means stronger evidence. It does not mean a better product.
Details in the editorial policy.
Seven categories with sample listings. Every listing stays marked “unverified” until it is reviewed. Featured placements are paid and labeled.
One email a week: new cases, the signal log, and what to ask vendors.