ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Assessment of hard tissue changes after horizontal guided bone regeneration with the aid of deep learning CBCT segmentation.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Volumetric analysis of root coverage with porcine acellular dermal matrix: Case study.Clinical advances in periodontics · 2026Article
- Bioengineered Teeth and Regenerative Strategies: Advances in Tissue Engineering and Stem Cell Applications.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Alveolar ridge augmentation in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: a study on current practices, patient management and innovations in Germany.International journal of implant dentistry · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the performance of a deep learning (DL) model for segmenting cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans taken before and after mandibular horizontal guided bone regeneration (GBR) to evaluate hard tissue changes. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe proposed SegResNet-based DL model was trained on 70 CBCT scans. It was tested on 10 pairs of pre- and post-operative CBCT scans of patients who underwent mandibular horizontal GBR. DL segmentations were compared to semi-automated (SA) segmentations of the same scans. Augmented hard tissue segmentation performance was evaluated by spatially aligning pre- and post-operative CBCT scans and subtracting preoperative segmentations obtained by DL and SA segmentations from the respective postoperative segmentations. The performance of DL compared to SA segmentation was evaluated based on the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), intersection over the union (IoU), Hausdorff distance (HD95), and volume comparison.
resultsThe mean DSC and IoU between DL and SA segmentations were 0.96 ± 0.01 and 0.92 ± 0.02 in both pre- and post-operative CBCT scans. While HD95 values between DL and SA segmentations were 0.62 mm ± 0.16 mm and 0.77 mm ± 0.31 mm for pre- and post-operative CBCTs respectively. The DSC, IoU and HD95 averaged 0.85 ± 0.08; 0.78 ± 0.07 and 0.91 ± 0.92 mm for augmented hard tissue models respectively. Volumes mandible- and augmented hard tissue segmentations did not differ significantly between the DL and SA methods.
conclusionsThe SegResNet-based DL model accurately segmented CBCT scans acquired before and after mandibular horizontal GBR. However, the training database must be further increased to increase the model's robustness. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Automated DL segmentation could aid treatment planning for GBR and subsequent implant placement procedures and in evaluating hard tissue changes.
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.