• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Rapid advancements in artificial intelligence are revolutionizing orthodontics, delivering faster, more precise diagnostic insights and improving long-term clinical results.

But as these systems assume greater influence over clinical choices, profound ethical dilemmas emerge.

Who bears responsibility when an AI-generated treatment plan results in complications or adverse outcomes?

How can informed consent be meaningful when the decision-making process behind an AI recommendation is inaccessible to both patients and providers?

Does dependence on AI erode the essential role of clinical judgment, pushing care toward rigid, standardized protocols that ignore individual variation?

Many AI models function as inscrutable "black boxes," generating outputs without disclosing the reasoning behind them.

Without explainability, AI-supported decisions risk violating the foundational principle of patient autonomy.

The human expert must remain the final arbiter of care, not a passive conduit for automated suggestions.

When training data lacks diversity, الاینر recommendations may be inaccurate, ineffective, or even dangerous for underrepresented patients.

Without deliberate efforts to broaden representation, AI risks becoming a tool of discrimination rather than democratization.

Accountability remains dangerously undefined in the age of AI-assisted orthodontics.

There’s also the risk of depersonalizing a field that thrives on human connection.

Care must remain rooted in relationship, not just resolution.

We must prioritize patient welfare over technological convenience, transparency over obscurity, and individualized care over algorithmic conformity.