ArticleClinical oral investigations2021
Reliability and accuracy of automatic segmentation of mandibular 3D models on linear measurements.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEvaluate if automatic segmentation of mandibular three-dimensional (3D) models is reliable and accurate. MATERIALS AND
methodsEight dry mandibles with eight silica markers were scanned in the i-CAT Classic device (Imaging Sciences International). Automatic segmentation was performed using nine standard preset thresholds in the Dolphin software (Dolphin Imaging & Management Solutions). Three observers individually made twice eight linear measurements on the mandibular 3D models. Another observer made physical measurements, twice as well, on the dry mandibles. Reliability and accuracy were evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Dahlberg's formula, Bland-Altman analyses, and changing bias with regression analyses.
resultsInter-observer and intra-observer ICCs and Dahlberg's error were ≥ 0.75 and ≤ 1.0 mm, respectively, for all measurements. Inter-observer agreement between mandibular 3D models and physical measurements ranged from -0.37 to 0.91 mm.
conclusionsLinear measurements made on mandibular 3D models obtained using standard preset thresholds are reliable and accurate. However, additional studies are necessary to confirm this hypothesis for clinical applications. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Since the 3D models are useful for diagnostics and surgical planning, it is necessary to determinate whether the linear measurements made on 3D models obtained by automatic segmentation are sufficiently reliable and accurate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33954849What 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.