Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34357096›Full record

ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2021

Automatic Segmentation of Mandible from Conventional Methods to Deep Learning-A Review.

Bingjiang Qiu, Hylke van der Wel, Joep Kraeima, Haye Hendrik Glas, Jiapan Guo, Ronald J H Borra, Max Johannes Hendrikus Witjes, Peter M A van Ooijen

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. AI-driven morphometric comparison of fibula vs. iliac flap in mandibular reconstruction.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Three-Dimensional Innovations in Personalized Surgery.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bingjiang Qiu3D Lab, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.
Hylke van der Wel3D Lab, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.
Joep Kraeima3D Lab, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.
Haye Hendrik Glas3D Lab, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.
Jiapan GuoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.
Ronald J H BorraMedical Imaging Center (MIC), University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.
Max Johannes Hendrikus Witjes3D Lab, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.
Peter M A van OoijenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8995-1210
University Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medical imaging techniques, such as (cone beam) computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, have proven to be a valuable component for oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS). Accurate segmentation of the mandible from head and neck (H&N) scans is an important step in order to build a personalized 3D digital mandible model for 3D printing and treatment planning of OMFS. Segmented mandible structures are used to effectively visualize the mandible volumes and to evaluate particular mandible properties quantitatively. However, mandible segmentation is always challenging for both clinicians and researchers, due to complex structures and higher attenuation materials, such as teeth (filling) or metal implants that easily lead to high noise and strong artifacts during scanning. Moreover, the size and shape of the mandible vary to a large extent between individuals. Therefore, mandible segmentation is a tedious and time-consuming task and requires adequate training to be performed properly. With the advancement of computer vision approaches, researchers have developed several algorithms to automatically segment the mandible during the last two decades. The objective of this review was to present the available fully (semi)automatic segmentation methods of the mandible published in different scientific articles. This review provides a vivid description of the scientific advancements to clinicians and researchers in this field to help develop novel automatic methods for clinical applications.

Indexed as

3D virtual surgical planningconvolutional neural networksmachine learningmandible segmentation

Identifiers

PMID34357096
PMCPMC8307673
OpenAlexW3174873576

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.