ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2013
Study of edge detection task in dental panoramic radiographs.
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Uses of Different Machine Learning Algorithms for Diagnosis of Dental Caries.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry: A Narrative Review of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Applications.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Review
- A Successful Non-surgical Management of a Type II Dens Invaginatus with Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy: A Case Report.Iranian endodontic journal · 2023Article
- Detection of the mandibular canal in orthopantomography using a Gabor-filtered anisotropic generalized Hough transform.Pattern recognition letters · 2016Article
- Evaluation of dental morphometrics during the orthodontic treatment.Biomedical engineering online · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is (1) to introduce a new approach for edge detection in orthopantograms (OPGs) and an improved automatic parameter selector for common edge detectors, (2) to present a comparison between our novel approach with common edge detectors and (3) to provide faster outputs without compromising quality. A new approach for edge detection based on statistical measures was introduced: (1) a set of N edge detection results is calculated from a given input image and a selected type of edge detector, (2) N correspondence maps are constructed from N edge detection results, (3) probabilities and average probabilities are computed, (4) an overall correspondence is evaluated for each correspondence map and (5) the correspondence map providing the best overall correspondence is taken as the result of edge detection procedure. A comparison with common edge detectors (the Roberts, Prewitt, Sobel, Laplacian of the Gaussian and Canny methods) with various parameter settings (304 combinations for each test image) was carried out. The methods were assessed objectively [edge mismatch error (EME), modified Hausdorff distance (MHD) and principal component analysis] and subjectively by experts in dentistry and based on time demands. The suitability of the new approach for edge detection in OPGs was confirmed by experts. The current conventional methods in edge detection in OPGs are inadequate (none of the tested methods reach an EME value or MHD value below 0.1). Our proposed approach for edge detection shows promising potential for its implementation in clinical dentistry. It enhances the accuracy of OPG interpretation and advances diagnosis and treatment planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.