ArticleScientific reports2025
Automated diagnosis for extraction difficulty of maxillary and mandibular third molars and post-extraction complications using deep learning.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optimal surgical methods require accurate prediction of extraction difficulty and complications. Although various automated methods related to third molar (M3) extraction have been proposed, none fully predict both extraction difficulty and post-extraction complications. This study proposes an automatic diagnosis method based on state-of-the-art semantic segmentation and classification models to predict the extraction difficulty of maxillary and mandibular M3s and possible complications (sinus perforation and inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) injury). A dataset of 4,903 orthopantomographys (OPGs), annotated by experts, was used. The proposed diagnosis method segments M3s (#18, #28, #38, #48), second molars (#17, #27, #37, #47), maxillary sinuses, and inferior alveolar canal (IAC) in OPGs using a segmentation model and extracts the region of interest (RoI). Using the RoI as input, the classification model predicts extraction difficulty and complication possibilities. The model achieved 87.97% and 88.85% accuracy in predicting maxillary and mandibular M3 extraction difficulty, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 96.25% and 97.3%, respectively. It also predicted the possibility of sinus perforation and IAN injury with 91.45% and 88.47% accuracy, and AUROC of 91.78% and 94.13%, respectively. Our results show that the proposed method effectively predicts the extraction difficulty and complications of maxillary and mandibular M3s using OPG, and could serve as a decision support system for clinicians before surgery.
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.