ArticlePolish journal of radiology2025
Assessing the accuracy of artificial intelligence in mandibular canal segmentation compared to semi-automatic segmentation on cone-beam computed tomography images.
Article in Polish journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence-based segmentation of mandibular canal on cone-beam computed tomography: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Oral radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Impact of Imaging Modality on AI-Based Detection of Incidental Maxillary Sinus Pathology: Comparison of Panoramic Radiography and CBCT.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Radiographic assessment of post-endodontic filling features on PAN and CBCT: diagnostic agreement of an AI platform against CBCT consensus.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Reliability of AI-Automated and Semiautomated Upper Airway Volume Segmentation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- CBCT-Based Orthodontic Classification Using Commercial AI: Completeness and Accuracy in Independent Validation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- AI-Based Detection of Dental Features on CBCT: Dual-Layer Reliability Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Detection accuracy of an AI platform for dental treatment features on panoramic radiographs - tooth- and patient-level analyses.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Deep learning for automated mandibular canal segmentation in CBCT scans.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to assess the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) in mandibular canal (MC) segmentation on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) compared to semi-automatic segmentation. The impact of third molar status (absent, erupted, impacted) on AI performance was also evaluated. Material and methods: A total of 150 CBCT scans (300 MCs) were retrospectively analysed. Semi-automatic MC segmentation was performed by experts using Romexis software, serving as the reference standard. AI-based segmentation was conducted using Diagnocat, an AI-driven cloud-based platform. Three-dimensional segmentation accuracy was assessed by comparing AI and semi-automatic segmentations through surface-to-surface distance metrics in Cloud Compare software. Statistical analyses included the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for inter- and intra-rater reliability, Kruskal-Wallis tests for group comparisons, and Mann-Whitney Results: The median deviation between AI and semi-automatic MC segmentation was 0.29 mm (SD: 0.25-0.37 mm), with 88% of cases within the clinically acceptable limit (≤ 0.50 mm). Inter-rater reliability for semi-automatic segmentation was 84.5%, while intra-rater reliability reached 95.5%. AI segmentation demonstrated the highest accuracy in scans without third molars (median deviation: 0.27 mm), followed by erupted third molars (0.28 mm) and impacted third molars (0.32 mm). Conclusions: AI demonstrated high accuracy in MC segmentation, closely matching expert-guided semi-automatic segmentation. However, segmentation errors were more frequent in cases with impacted third molars, probably due to anatomical complexity. Further optimisation of AI models using diverse training datasets and multi-centre validation is recommended to enhance reliability in complex cases.
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.