ArticleHeliyon2024
AI model to detect contact relationship between maxillary sinus and posterior teeth.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deep Learning Models for Evaluating the Anatomical Relationship Between Posterior Maxillary Teeth and Maxillary Sinus in Panoramic Radiographs.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To establish a novel deep learning networks (MSF-MPTnet) based on panoramic radiographs (PRs) for automatic assessment of relationship between maxillary sinus floor (MSF) and maxillary posterior teeth (MPT), and to compare accuracy of MSF-MPTnet, dentists and radiologists identifying contact relationship. Study design: A total of 1035 PRs and 1035 Cone-beam computed tomographys (CBCT)images were collected from January 2018 to April 2022. The relationships were classified into class I and II by CBCT. Class I represents non-contact group, and class II represents contact group. 350 PRs were randomly selected as test dataset and accuracy of MSF-MPTnet, dentists, and radiologists was compared. Results: The intraclass correlation coefficient of dentists was 0.460-0.690 and it was 0.453-0.664 for radiologists. Sensitivity and accuracy of MSF-MPTnet were 0.682-0.852and 0.890-0.951, indicating that the output performance of MSF-MPTnet was reliable. Accuracy of maxillary premolars and molars were 79.7%-90.3 %, 76.2%-89.2 % and 72.9%-88.3 % in MSF-MPTnet model, dentists and radiologists. Accuracy of class I relationship in the MSF-MPTnet model (67.7%-94.6 %) was higher than that of dentists (56.5%-84.6 %) in maxillary first premolars and right second premolar, and accuracy of class I relationship in the MSF-MPTnet model is also higher than radiologists (40.0%-78.1 %) in all teeth positions ( Conclusions: MSF-MPTnet model could increase detecting accuracy of the relationship between MSF and MPT, minimize pseudo contact relationship and reduce frequency of CBCT use.
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.