ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Feasibility and accuracy assessment of AI-driven incisor restoration using 3D point cloud data.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
objectivesThis study introduces an open-source intelligent anterior tooth restoration method utilizing a point cloud completion network and evaluates its accuracy compared to traditional manual design. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 209 digital dental models from patients treated at Beijing Stomatological Hospital (Jan 2024-Jan 2025) were analyzed. Missing maxillary right central incisors were simulated using Geomagic Wrap. The study was divided into two groups: manual design (MD) and AI-generated (AI-G). The AI-G group utilized an AdaPoinTr-based model. Reconstruction accuracy was quantified via L1/L2 Chamfer Distance (CD), F-Score, and Hausdorff Distance (HD). STATISTICS: Paired t-test, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (α=0.05).
resultsThe MD group exhibited superior local accuracy [L1-CD, MD (9.9171 ± 1.4654) vs. AI-G (15.2144 ± 0.2917), P<0.001] and global matching [L2-CD, MD (2.9709 ± 1.3945) vs. AI-G (6.7731 ± 0.3179, P<0.001) compared to AI-G. Microstructural retention (F-Score) also favored MD [MD 58.4955 (IQR: 11.8238) vs. AI-G 34.6080 (IQR: 0.6612), P<0.001]. However, extreme error control (HD) showed no significant difference [MD 0.0490 mm (IQR: 0.1094 mm) vs. AI-G 0.1264 mm (IQR: 0.0073 mm), P=0.058]. AI-G demonstrated more stable error distribution (IQR: 0.0073 mm vs. 0.1094 mm).
conclusionsThis study introduces an innovative AdaPoinTr network for reconstructing the missing central incisor. Though slightly less accurate than manual design, the AI approach exhibits better stability and consistency, promising for intelligent prosthodontics. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study validates the feasibility of AI-driven point cloud completion networks in 3D reconstruction tasks for missing central incisors, providing new research directions for the intelligent development of digital prosthodontics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41139750What 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.