ArticleScientific reports2025
A unique AI-based tool for automated segmentation of pulp cavity structures in maxillary premolars on CBCT.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Detecting Residual Root Canal Filling Material After Retreatment: Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Digital Microscopy Compared with Microcomputed Tomography.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- AI-generated 3D models enhance CBCT interpretation of root canal anatomy among undergraduate and postgraduate students.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Observational
- FDA-Approved AI Solutions in Dental Imaging: A Narrative Review of Applications, Evidence, and Outlook.International dental journal · 2026Review
- Development of an AI model to predict tooth movement during orthodontic treatment.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Computational Insights into Root Canal Treatment: A Survey of Selected Methods in Imaging, Segmentation, Morphological Analysis, and Clinical Management.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
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
To develop and validate an artificial intelligence (AI)-driven tool for the automatic segmentation of pulp cavity structures in maxillary premolars teeth on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). One hundred and eleven CBCT scans were divided into training (n = 55), validation (n = 14), and testing (n = 42) sets, with manual segmentation serving as the ground truth. The AI tool automatically segmented the testing dataset, with errors corrected by an operator to create refined 3D (R-AI) models. The overall AI performance was assessed by comparing AI and R-AI models, and thirty percent of the test sample was manually segmented to compare AI and human performance. Time-efficiency of each method was recorded in seconds (s). Statistical analysis included independent and paired t-tests to evaluate the effect of tooth type on accuracy metrics and AI versus manual segmentation. One-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test was used for time efficiency analysis. A 5% significance level was used for all analyses.The AI tool demonstrated excellent performance with Dice similarity coefficients (DSC) ranging from 88% ± 7 to 93% ± 3 and 95% Hausdorff distances (HD) from 0.13 ± 0.06 to 0.16 ± 0.06 mm. Automated segmentation of maxillary second premolars performed slightly better than that of maxillary first premolars in terms of intersection over union (p = 0.005), DSC (p = 0.008), recall (p = 0.008), precision (p = 0.02), and 95% HD (p = 0.04). The AI-based approach showed higher recall (p = 0.04), accuracy (p = 0.01), and lower 95% HD than manual segmentation (p < 0.001). AI segmentation (42.8 ± 8.4 s) was 75 times faster than manual segmentation (3218.7 ± 692.2 s) (p < 0.001). The AI tool proved highly accurate and time-efficient, surpassing human expert performance.
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.