ArticleScientific reports2022
Improving performance of deep learning models using 3.5D U-Net via majority voting for tooth segmentation on cone beam computed tomography.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Accuracy of artificial intelligence-based segmentation in maxillofacial structures: a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- A novel Pulp Caries GAN multi loss GAN with new pulp inspired metaheuristics for pediatric dental caries detection and segmentation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Computational Insights into Root Canal Treatment: A Survey of Selected Methods in Imaging, Segmentation, Morphological Analysis, and Clinical Management.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- U-Net-Based Deep Learning for Simultaneous Segmentation and Agenesis Detection of Primary and Permanent Teeth in Panoramic Radiographs.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- An open deep learning-based framework and model for tooth instance segmentation in dental CBCT.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Topology-preserving contourwise shape fusion.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Consensus of algorithms for lesion segmentation in brain MRI studies of multiple sclerosis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The Effects of Khat Chewing among Djiboutians: Dental Chemical Studies, Gingival Histopathological Analyses and Bioinformatics Approaches.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Semi or fully automatic tooth segmentation in CBCT images: a review.PeerJ. Computer science · 2024Article
- Retinal microvascular complexity as a putative biomarker of biological age: a pilot study.Biogerontology · 2023Article
- Surface Defect Detection for Automated Tape Laying and Winding Based on Improved YOLOv5.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Application of Deep Learning on CBCT in Dentistry.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- CBCT-based synthetic CT generated using CycleGAN with HU correction for adaptive radiotherapy of nasopharyngeal carcinoma.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Automatic Segmentation of Teeth, Crown-Bridge Restorations, Dental Implants, Restorative Fillings, Dental Caries, Residual Roots, and Root Canal Fillings on Orthopantomographs: Convenience and Pitfalls.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Deep learning allows automatic segmentation of teeth on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). However, the segmentation performance of deep learning varies among different training strategies. Our aim was to propose a 3.5D U-Net to improve the performance of the U-Net in segmenting teeth on CBCT. This study retrospectively enrolled 24 patients who received CBCT. Five U-Nets, including 2Da U-Net, 2Dc U-Net, 2Ds U-Net, 2.5Da U-Net, 3D U-Net, were trained to segment the teeth. Four additional U-Nets, including 2.5Dv U-Net, 3.5Dv5 U-Net, 3.5Dv4 U-Net, and 3.5Dv3 U-Net, were obtained using majority voting. Mathematical morphology operations including erosion and dilation (E&D) were applied to remove diminutive noise speckles. Segmentation performance was evaluated by fourfold cross validation using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV). Kruskal-Wallis test with post hoc analysis using Bonferroni correction was used for group comparison. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Performance of U-Nets significantly varies among different training strategies for teeth segmentation on CBCT (P < 0.05). The 3.5Dv5 U-Net and 2.5Dv U-Net showed DSC and PPV significantly higher than any of five originally trained U-Nets (all P < 0.05). E&D significantly improved the DSC, accuracy, specificity, and PPV (all P < 0.005). The 3.5Dv5 U-Net achieved highest DSC and accuracy among all U-Nets. The segmentation performance of the U-Net can be improved by majority voting and E&D. Overall speaking, the 3.5Dv5 U-Net achieved the best segmentation performance among all U-Nets.
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.