Stakeholder-Reported Requirements for Future Artificial Intelligence Decision Support in Periodontal Care: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Dentists, Physicians and Patients in Kazakhstan

2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.3390/healthcare14203554
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Clinicians’ expectations of artificial intelligence (AI) for periodontal care in Central Asia are largely unknown. We surveyed dentists and physicians in Kazakhstan on preliminary requirements for a future decision-support system and explored patients’ self-reported periodontal signs. Methods: Cross-sectional online surveys (July–September 2026; non-probability recruitment) included 33 dentists, 91 primary health care physicians and medical specialists, and 455 adult patients whose periodontal eligibility was not clinically verified; the patient questionnaire did not address AI. Analyses used Wilson 95% confidence intervals (CI), exact tests with Holm adjustment and exploratory logistic regression. Results: Dentists prioritised history-taking (81.8%) and early gingivitis diagnosis (69.7%). Autonomy choices were spread across five clinician-controlled configurations (low autonomy most frequent, 30.3%); no autonomous option was offered. Lack of a legal framework and liability insurance was the most cited barrier (60.6%). Physicians and specialists selected early gingivitis screening (80.2%) but cited insufficient competence (53.8%). Self-reported signs occurred in 49.0% of patients. Associations with high stress (adjusted odds ratio 2.11; 95% CI 1.14–3.89) and family history (1.61; 1.02–2.55) lost significance after excluding 204 responses collected via an inter-university platform. Conclusions: Clinician responses suggest preliminary requirements; patient associations remain exploratory. Instrument and clinical outcome validation should precede system design.