ArticleJournal of dental sciences2024
Applying machine learning to assess the morphology of sculpted teeth.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of artificial intelligence evolution on the dental morphology sculpting education.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Article
- Application and development of artificial intelligence and immersive technologies in dental education: a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the accuracy, occlusal contact and clinical applications of zirconia crowns using artificial intelligence design versus human design.Journal of dental sciences · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence (AI) in restorative dentistry: current trends and future prospects.BMC oral health · 2025Review
- Sodium hypochlorite against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm in dentinal tubules: effect of concentration, temperature, and exposure time.Odontology · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Producing tooth crowns through dental technology is a basic function of dentistry. The morphology of tooth crowns is the most important parameter for evaluating its acceptability. The procedures were divided into four steps: tooth collection, scanning skills, use of mathematical methods and software, and machine learning calculation. Materials and methods: Dental plaster rods were prepared. The effective data collected were to classify 121 teeth (15th tooth position), 342 teeth (16th tooth position), 69 teeth (21st tooth position), and 89 teeth (43rd tooth position), for a total of 621 teeth. The procedures are divided into four steps: tooth collection, scanning skills, use of mathematical methods and software, and machine learning calculation. Results: The area under the curve (AUC) value was 0, 0.5, and 0.72 in this study. The precision rate and recall rate of micro-averaging/macro-averaging were 0.75/0.73 and 0.75/0.72. If we took a newly carved tooth picture into the program, the current effectiveness of machine learning was about 70%-75% to evaluate the quality of tooth morphology. Through the calculation and analysis of the two different concepts of micro-average/macro-average and AUC, similar values could be obtained. Conclusion: This study established a set of procedures that can judge the quality of hand-carved plaster sticks and teeth, and the accuracy rate is about 70%-75%. It is expected that this process can be used to assist dental technicians in judging the pros and cons of hand-carved plaster sticks and teeth, so as to help dental technicians to learn the tooth morphology more effectively.
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.