ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2025
Geometric Fidelity of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computed Tomography-Derived Virtual 3D Models of Porcine Cadaver Mandibles: Conventional Versus Artificial Intelligence-Based Segmentation.
Article in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe workflow for virtual surgical planning (VSP) and the application of CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) procedures are mainly based on computed tomography (CT) derived DICOM data sets. Alternatively, this study aims to preclinically illuminate the feasibility of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) based workflow and the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) based segmentation on the required fidelity on basic 3D geometry acquisition. MATERIALS AND
methodsPorcine cadaver mandibles were imaged with CT and a T1-weighted MRI sequence. The resulting DICOM data sets were segmented conventionally (Mimics Medical 17.0, Materialize; Belgium) and with AI-based segmentation software (ImFusion Labels and Suite, Version 2.19.2, ImFusion; Germany). The four standard tessellation language (STL) files were superimposed with a corresponding reference model derived from an optic scan (Artec Space Spider, Artec 3D; Luxembourg) and the following parameters were analysed: Hausdorff distance (HD), mean surface distance (MSD), root mean square distance (RMSD), time.
resultsIn comparison to the reference model, all four parameters were significantly (P 0.001) better for the CT imaging and the AI-based segmentation. MRI-derived AI-based segmentation reached the fidelity of CT imaging data sets and conventional segmentation (HD, MSD, and RMSD each P >0.05).
conclusionThe use of AI-based segmentation software proved to be useful and feasible for MRI-derived data sets, and generated the desired 3D geometry more quickly while maintaining the necessary quality. Nevertheless, the results for the CT were still better and remain yet the standard.
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.