ReviewInternational journal of biomedical imaging2025
Alveolar Bone Segmentation Methods in Assessing the Effectiveness of Periodontal Defect Regeneration Through Machine Learning of CBCT Data: A Systematic Review.
Review in International journal of biomedical imaging, 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.
- Machine learning for classification of periodontal defects (vertical versus horizontal) using CBCT datasets.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Alveolar Bone Segmentation Methods in Assessing the Effectiveness of Periodontal Defect Regeneration Through Machine Learning of CBCT Data: A Systematic Review.International journal of biomedical imaging · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate various segmentation methods used for cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of alveolar bone, assessing their effectiveness and potential benefits in digital workflows for periodontal defect regeneration. Data: This review adheres to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) Checklist. Source: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2024 to June 2025 using MeSH terms on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Medline databases, with publication date restricted to 5 years. The PRISMA guidelines were followed to ensure a systematic review process, and the review protocol was registered with Prospero. The QUADAS-2 checklist was used to evaluate the risk of bias in the included studies. Study Selection: The initial search yielded 834 articles, which were systematically filtered down to 23 eligible studies. Deep learning methods, particularly U-Net, were the most frequently employed segmentation techniques. Four studies utilized semi-automated methods, while the remaining studies relied on manual or other segmentation methods. The Dice similarity (DC) index, ranging from 76% to 98%, was the primary metric used to assess segmentation performance. Conclusions: Significant differences were observed between the segmentation of healthy and defective alveolar bone, underscoring the need to enhance deep learning-based methods. Accurate segmentation of periodontal defects in DICOM images is a crucial first step in the scaffold workflow, as it enables precise assessment of defect morphology and volume. This information directly informs scaffold design, ensuring that the scaffold geometry is tailored to the patient-specific defect. Prospero Registration: CRD42024590957.
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.