Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39141154›Full record

ArticleOral radiology2025

Deep learning segmentation of mandible with lower dentition from cone beam CT.

Daniel C Kargilis, Winnie Xu, Samir Reddy, Shilpa Shree Kuduva Ramesh, Steven Wang, Anh D Le, Chamith S Rajapakse

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oral radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07365085 (Whole Versus Segmented In-House 3D Mandibular Guides for Mandibular Reconstruction Using Free Fibular Flaps), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07365085 nacompletednot on this map

Whole Versus Segmented In-House 3D Mandibular Guides for Mandibular Reconstruction Using Free Fibular Flaps: A Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorIndonesia UniversityRan2023 to 2025Enrolled36Conditions3d Printing, Facial Symmetry, Free Fibular Flap, 3d ModelArms3D-printed surgical guide - segmented model, 3D-printed surgical guide - whole mandible model
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Trueness of artificial intelligence-based, manual, and global thresholding segmentation protocols for human mandibles.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Daniel C KargilisUniversity of Pennsylvania, 1 Founders Pavilion, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-4283, USA. dkargil1@jh.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-7013-4301
Winnie XuUniversity of Pennsylvania, 1 Founders Pavilion, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-4283, USA.
Samir ReddyUniversity of Pennsylvania, 1 Founders Pavilion, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-4283, USA.
Shilpa Shree Kuduva RameshUniversity of Pennsylvania, 1 Founders Pavilion, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-4283, USA.
Steven WangUniversity of Pennsylvania, 1 Founders Pavilion, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-4283, USA.
Anh D LeUniversity of Pennsylvania, 1 Founders Pavilion, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-4283, USA.
Chamith S RajapakseUniversity of Pennsylvania, 1 Founders Pavilion, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-4283, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aimed to train a 3D U-Net convolutional neural network (CNN) for mandible and lower dentition segmentation from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans.

methodsIn an ambispective cross-sectional design, CBCT scans from two hospitals (2009-2019 and 2021-2022) constituted an internal dataset and external validation set, respectively. Manual segmentation informed CNN training, and evaluations employed Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) for volumetric accuracy. A blinded oral maxillofacial surgeon performed qualitative grading of CBCT scans and object meshes. Statistical analyses included independent t-tests and ANOVA tests to compare DSC across patient subgroups of gender, race, body mass index (BMI), test dataset used, age, and degree of metal artifact. Tests were powered for a minimum detectable difference in DSC of 0.025, with alpha of 0.05 and power level of 0.8.

results648 CBCT scans from 490 patients were included in the study. The CNN achieved high accuracy (average DSC: 0.945 internal, 0.940 external). No DSC differences were observed between test set used, gender, BMI, and race. Significant differences in DSC were identified based on age group and the degree of metal artifact. The majority (80%) of object meshes produced by both manual and automatic segmentation were rated as acceptable or higher quality.

conclusionWe developed a model for automatic mandible and lower dentition segmentation from CBCT scans in a demographically diverse cohort including a high degree of metal artifacts. The model demonstrated good accuracy on internal and external test sets, with majority acceptable quality from a clinical grader.

Indexed as

Cone-Beam Computed TomographyDeep LearningMandibleAdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesDentitionFemaleHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMaleMiddle AgedCone-beam CTDeep learningMandibleSegmentation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.