Most dental patients appear to view AI in dentistry positively when its use is overseen by a dentist, according to a review recently published in the Digital Dentistry Journal.
However, ethical considerations, data privacy, and liability may remain key concerns for patients, the authors wrote.
“Patients trust dentists' judgment and have a positive attitude toward AI in dentistry when these technologies are supervised by dentists,” wrote the authors, led by Kaíssa da Cunha Lima of the University of Porto in Portugal (Digit Dent J, January 27, 2026, 100071).
The review sought to evaluate patients’ knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions (KAP) of AI in dentistry and identify key concerns related to its use. An electronic search was conducted, yielding nine studies that met the inclusion criteria after double-blind screening, they wrote.
The included studies consisted of patient surveys or questionnaires assessing KAP toward AI implementation in clinical dental practice. The earliest publication appeared in 2019, with research activity increasing through 2025, as most selected studies were published in 2024 and 2025. Most of the studies focused on general dentistry or dental imaging applications.
The meta-analysis revealed that most patients place greater trust in dentists, do not believe AI will replace dentists, and do not base their choice of provider on whether AI is used. Patients generally viewed AI as a supportive tool, recognizing it can speed up treatment, reduce errors, assist with radiograph evaluation, and aid in diagnosis. AI-based assistance systems were widely accepted, while direct robotic dental treatment has not gained similar acceptance, they wrote.
Mixed findings emerged regarding whether AI could improve the dentist-patient relationship, suggesting ongoing uncertainty about its impact on interpersonal care. Ethical concerns, particularly around privacy, data protection, information sharing, and uneven patient awareness, highlight the need for better education and clearer communication about AI in dentistry.
However, the study had limitations, as the use of varied questionnaires and outcome measures across included studies limited the ability to make direct and consistent comparisons, the authors added.
“More time and research are needed to clearly identify changes in patient KAP and acceptance over time, which should increase as AI regulations evolve, patient concerns are addressed, and greater access to knowledge is provided,” they concluded.
