METHODS: The datasets were analysed using SPSS (version 26) and ChatGPT-4. Statistical tests included the independent t-test, paired t-test, ANOVA, chi-square test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Mann-Whitney U test, Pearson and Spearman correlation, regression analysis, kappa statistic, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman analysis, and sensitivity and specificity analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to report results, and differences between the two tools were noted.
RESULTS: SPSS and ChatGPT-4 produced identical results for the independent sample t-test, paired t-test, and simple linear regression. In one-way ANOVA, both tools provided consistent F-values, but post-hoc analysis revealed discrepancies in mean differences and confidence intervals. Pearson chi-square and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests showed variations in p-values and Z-values. Mann-Whitney U test had differences in interquartile range (IQR), U, and Z-values. Pearson and Spearman's correlations were consistent, with IQR differences in Spearman. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) analyses were consistent, though differences in standard errors and confidence intervals were observed.
CONCLUSION: ChatGPT-4 produced accurate results for several statistical tests, matching SPSS in simpler analyses. However, discrepancies in post-hoc analyses, confidence intervals, and more complex tests indicate that careful validation is required when using ChatGPT-4 for detailed statistical work. Researchers should exercise caution and cross-validate results with established tools such as SPSS.
METHODS: This study involved 54 subjects (27 pairs) of male-female siblings aged 15 to 45 years. Dental casts were digitized and analyzed for tooth size (TS), arch width (AW), arch length (AL), arch length discrepancy (ALD), and palatal arch dimensions (PAD). The data obtained were subjected to t-tests, and the palatal curvature (PC) was modeled using a fourth-order polynomial.
RESULTS: Significant differences (P < 0.05) between the sexes were found in the mesiodistal TS, particularly in all canines, as well as 16, 36, 46, and 41. Maxillary AW and AL were also significantly (P < 0.05) influenced by sexes. Most arch parameters were more prominent in male siblings, and the effect of age on PC differed between the sexes. In addition, the PC of adolescent females was mostly superimposed on adult females relative to males.
CONCLUSION: Among siblings, males were found to have significantly larger dental arch dimensions than females. Furthermore, PC showed some differences between the sexes in both the frontal and sagittal planes.
METHODOLOGY: This cross-sectional study involved 222 subjects (50% DS, 50% NS) who were matched by gender and age. The casts were digitized into three-dimensional images. These images were used alongside the ten occlusal characteristics of the Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI) to determine malocclusion severity and the need for orthodontic treatment.
RESULTS: There were 58 (52.3%) females and 53 (47.7%) males with a mean age of 18.4 ± 8.4 years in both groups. The most common and significant (p 30). The DS showed some impact of malocclusion traits components of the DAI.
CONCLUSION: The occurrence of malocclusion was higher in DS, implying a higher need for orthodontic treatments than for NS subjects.