ArticleJournal of imaging2025
Development of Semi-Automatic Dental Image Segmentation Workflows with Root Canal Recognition for Faster Ground Tooth Acquisition.
Article in Journal of imaging, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper investigates the application of image segmentation techniques in endodontics, focusing on improving diagnostic accuracy and achieving faster segmentation by delineating specific dental regions such as teeth and root canals. Deep learning architectures, notably 3D U-Net and GANs, have advanced the image segmentation process for dental structures, supporting more precise dental procedures. However, challenges like the demand for extensive labeled datasets and ensuring model generalizability remain. Two semi-automatic segmentation workflows, Grow From Seeds (GFS) and Watershed (WS), were developed to provide quicker acquisition of ground truth training data for deep learning models using 3D Slicer software version 5.8.1. These workflows were evaluated against a manual segmentation benchmark and a recent dental segmentation automated tool on three separate datasets. The evaluations were performed by the overall shapes of a maxillary central incisor and a maxillary second molar and by the region of the root canal of both teeth. Results from Kruskal-Wallis and Nemenyi tests indicated that the semi-automated workflows, more often than not, were not statistically different from the manual benchmark based on dice coefficient similarity, while the automated method consistently provided significantly different 3D models from their manual counterparts. The study also explores the benefits of labor reduction and time savings achieved by the semi-automated methods.
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.