ArticleHead & face medicine2022
Virtual reconstruction of midfacial bone defect based on generative adversarial network.
Article in Head & face medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Generative Artificial Intelligence: Applications and Future Prospects in Dentistry.International dental journal · 2026Review
- 3D Printing Today, AI Tomorrow: Rethinking Apert Syndrome Surgery in Low-Resource Settings.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- AI-driven 3D bioprinting for regenerative medicine: From bench to bedside.Bioactive materials · 2025Review
- Neural shape completion for personalized Maxillofacial surgery.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) in the Field of Head and Neck Surgery: Current Evidence and Prospects for the Future-A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Sex classification of 3D skull images using deep neural networks.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Three-Dimensional Virtual Reconstruction of External Nasal Defects Based on Facial Mesh Generation Network.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe study aims to evaluate the accuracy of the generative adversarial networks (GAN) for reconstructing bony midfacial defects.
methodsAccording to anatomy, the bony midface was divided into five subunit structural regions and artificial defects are manually created on the corresponding CT images. GAN is trained to reconstruct artificial defects to their previous normal shape and tested. The clinical defects are reconstructed by the trained GAN, where the midspan defects were used for qualitative evaluation and the unilateral defects were used for quantitative evaluation. The cosine similarity and the mean error are used to evaluate the accuracy of reconstruction. The Mann-Whitney U test is used to detect whether reconstruction errors were consistent in artificial and unilateral clinical defects.
resultsThis study included 518 normal CT data, with 415 in training set and 103 in testing set, and 17 real patient data, with 2 midspan defects and 15 unilateral defects. Reconstruction of midspan clinical defects assessed by experts is acceptable. The cosine similarity in the reconstruction of artificial defects and unilateral clinical defects is 0.97 ± 0.01 and 0.96 ± 0.01, P = 0.695. The mean error in the reconstruction of artificial defects and unilateral clinical defects is 0.59 ± 0.31 mm and 0.48 ± 0.08 mm, P = 0.09.
conclusionGAN-based virtual reconstruction technology has reached a high accuracy in testing set, and statistical tests suggest that it can achieve similar results in real patient data. This study has preliminarily solved the problem of bony midfacial defect without reference.
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.