ArticleFrontiers in dental medicine2024
Automating bone loss measurement on periapical radiographs for predicting the periodontitis stage and grade.
Article in Frontiers in dental medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multimodal Prediction of Periodontitis Using Root Exposure in Intraoral Images and Age.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Detection and Classification of Peri-Implant Marginal Bone Loss in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Using a Deep Learning Approach.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
- A data-driven method for surgeon-specific difficulty assessment in third molar extraction.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Automated Classification Radiograph of Periodontal Bone Loss Using Deep Learning.Biomedical engineering and computational biology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate an automated approach for segmenting bone loss (BL) on periapical (PA) radiographs and predicting the stage and grade of periodontitis. Methods: One thousand PA radiographs obtained from 572 patients were utilized for training while a separate set of 1,582 images from 210 patients were used for testing. BL was segmented using a U-Net model, which was trained with augmented datasets to enhance generalizability. Apex detection was performed using YOLO-v9, focusing on identifying apexes of teeth to measure root length. Root length was calculated as the distance between the coordinates of detected apexes and center of cemento-enamel junction (CEJ), which was segmented utilizing a U-Net algorithm. BL percentage (ratio of BL to the root length) was used to predict the stage and grade of periodontitis. Evaluation metrics including accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, Intersection over Union (IoU), mean absolute error (MAE), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and root mean square error (RMSE) were used to evaluate the models' performance. Results: The U-Net model achieved high accuracy in segmenting BL with 94.9%, 92.9%, and 95.62% on training, validation, and test datasets, respectively. The YOLO-v9 model exhibited a mean Average Precision (mAP) of 66.7% for apex detection, with a precision of 79.6% and recall of 62.4%. The BL percentage calculated from the segmented images and detected apexes demonstrated excellent agreement with clinical assessments, with ICC exceeding 0.94. Stage and grade prediction for periodontitis showed robust performance specifically for advanced stages (III/IV) and grades (C) with an F1-score of 0.945 and 0.83, respectively. Conclusion: The integration of U-Net and YOLO-v9 models for BL segmentation and apex detection on PA radiographs proved effective in enhancing the accuracy and reliability of periodontitis diagnosis and grading.
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.