Trial reportEuropean journal of medical research2024
Automated localization of mandibular landmarks in the construction of mandibular median sagittal plane.
Trial report in European journal of medical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated assessment of 3D facial asymmetry: a systematic review.European journal of orthodontics · 2026Pooled it
- Automatic identification of anatomical landmarks in three-dimensional computed tomography/cone-beam computed tomography: a scoping review.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Review
- Diagnostic Support in Dentistry Through Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Fully Automated AI-Based Digital Workflow for Mirroring of Healthy and Defective Craniofacial Models.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Applications of artificial intelligence in diagnosis and treatment planning of orthodontics: a narrative review.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Review
- Three-dimensional analysis of mandibular and condylar growth using artificial intelligence tools: a comparison of twin-block and Frankel II Appliances.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Autonomous surgical planning of mandibular angle reduction based on anatomical landmarks and osteotomy plane detection.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Clinical analysis and comparative study of facial symmetry of three-dimensional skull models.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Design of a miniaturized 90-degree quadrature hybrid coupler with harmonic suppression ability using π-shaped lumped elements.Scientific reports · 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 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo use deep learning to segment the mandible and identify three-dimensional (3D) anatomical landmarks from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images, the planes constructed from the mandibular midline landmarks were compared and analyzed to find the best mandibular midsagittal plane (MMSP).
methodsA total of 400 participants were randomly divided into a training group (n = 360) and a validation group (n = 40). Normal individuals were used as the test group (n = 50). The PointRend deep learning mechanism segmented the mandible from CBCT images and accurately identified 27 anatomic landmarks via PoseNet. 3D coordinates of 5 central landmarks and 2 pairs of side landmarks were obtained for the test group. Every 35 combinations of 3 midline landmarks were screened using the template mapping technique. The asymmetry index (AI) was calculated for each of the 35 mirror planes. The template mapping technique plane was used as the reference plane; the top four planes with the smallest AIs were compared through distance, volume difference, and similarity index to find the plane with the fewest errors.
resultsThe mandible was segmented automatically in 10 ± 1.5 s with a 0.98 Dice similarity coefficient. The mean landmark localization error for the 27 landmarks was 1.04 ± 0.28 mm. MMSP should use the plane made by B (supramentale), Gn (gnathion), and F (mandibular foramen). The average AI grade was 1.6 (min-max: 0.59-3.61). There was no significant difference in distance or volume (P > 0.05); however, the similarity index was significantly different (P < 0.01).
conclusionDeep learning can automatically segment the mandible, identify anatomic landmarks, and address medicinal demands in people without mandibular deformities. The most accurate MMSP was the B-Gn-F plane.
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.