ArticleScientific reports2025
Deep learning-assisted CBCT segmentation provides reliable volumetric assessment of mandibular defects compared with micro-CT for 3D printing and surgical planning.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence and Digital Workflow in Craniofacial Bone Tissue Engineering: From Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) to Personalized Bioceramic Implants.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Implant Dentistry: Clinical Validity, Diagnostic Performance, Surgical Planning, and Medico-Legal Implications-A Narrative Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
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
Accurate volumetric assessment of intraosseous lesions is crucial in various fields, including bone defect evaluation, surgical outcome prediction, treatment monitoring, and 3D model design. High volumetric accuracy is essential for CBCT in digital dentistry applications. However, there is a notable lack of studies investigating the accuracy of volume determination using CBCT. In this study, we examined the factors affecting CBCT volumetric accuracy, namely voxel size, lesion location, and segmentation techniques, to improve diagnostic protocols and optimize the clinical applications of this imaging modality. 28 artificial bone defects were created in the dry rabbit mandible in two regions (Anterior and Posterior). CBCT imaging was performed with standardized positioning at two voxel sizes (0.1 and 0.2 mm). regarding micro-CT imaging as the gold standard. Images were analyzed in DICOM format using ImageJ after preprocessing, and semi-automatic segmentation was conducted via Otsu thresholding with a manually defined external defect border. In Avizo, a ResNet18-encoded U-Net architecture (Avizo's Backboned U-Net implementation) was trained for the multiclass segmentation of the bone, background, and lesions. The volume calculations were based on the voxel counts. Volumetric measurements from CBCT showed no statistically significant difference from the micro-CT gold standard (p > 0.05). However, a significant underestimation of volume was observed when using a larger voxel size (0.2 mm) compared with a smaller voxel size (0.1 mm), irrespective of the segmentation software used (p < 0.05). The choice of software (ImageJ vs. Avizo's deep learning-assisted tool) did not significantly affect the measurements of the porosity. The location of the defect (anterior vs. posterior) also had no significant impact on the accuracy. CBCT is a reliable tool for the volumetric assessment of mandibular bone defects and demonstrates strong agreement with micro-CT. Clinically, our findings suggest that selecting a smaller voxel size (0.1 mm) is paramount for maximizing measurement accuracy in applications requiring high precision, such as surgical planning and 3D model fabrication. The implementation of a deep learning-assisted segmentation model proved to be a viable and efficient alternative to conventional semi-automatic methods, highlighting its potential to streamline the digital workflow in dentistry without compromising accuracy.
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.