ArticleJournal of imaging2025
Fully Automated AI-Based Digital Workflow for Mirroring of Healthy and Defective Craniofacial Models.
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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The accurate reconstruction of craniofacial defects requires the precise segmentation and mirroring of healthy anatomy. Conventional workflows rely on manual interaction, making them time-consuming and subject to operator variability. This study developed and validated a fully automated digital pipeline that integrates deep learning-based segmentation with algorithmic mirroring for craniofacial reconstruction. A total of 388 cranial CT scans were used to train a three-dimensional nnU-Net model for skull and mandible segmentation. A Principal Component Analysis-Iterative Closest Point (PCA-ICP) algorithm was then applied to compute the sagittal symmetry plane and perform mirroring. Automated results were compared with expert-generated segmentations and manually defined symmetry planes using Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Mean Surface Distance (MSD), Hausdorff Distance (HD), and angular deviation. The nnU-Net achieved high segmentation accuracy for both the mandible (mean DSC 0.956) and the skull (mean DSC 0.965). Mirroring results showed minimal angular deviation from expert reference planes (mandible: 1.32° ± 0.71° in defect cases, 1.58° ± 1.12° in intact cases; skull: 1.75° ± 0.84° in defect cases, 1.15° ± 0.81° in intact cases). The presence of defects did not significantly affect accuracy. This automated workflow demonstrated robust performance and clinical applicability, offering standardized, reproducible, and time-efficient planning for craniofacial reconstruction.
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.