ArticleInternational dental journal2026
Comparison of Artificial Intelligence Models for Automatic Segmentation of the Mandibular Canals and Branches.
Article in International dental journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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
objectivesThis study aimed to compare and improve the performance of three deep learning models, i.e., U-Net Transformer (UNETR), Swin UNETR, and 3D UX-Net, for the segmentation of the mandibular canal and its branches. MATERIALS AND
methodsA dataset of 173 cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans was used for training, validation, and testing. The mandibular canals and branches were segmented manually and by the three AI models. A postprocessing module based on anatomical characteristics was then applied to improve model performance. Evaluations were conducted using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), intersection over union (IoU), 95th Percentile Hausdorff Distance (HD95), average symmetric surface distance (ASSD), precision, and recall.
resultsAll models efficiently segmented the mandibular, incisive, and mental canals, operating at least 25 times faster than manual annotation. Both 3D UX-Net and Swin UNETR consistently outperformed the UNETR network across most metrics, with 3D UX-Net demonstrating a slight performance advantage over Swin UNETR in terms of DSC, IoU, and recall. Furthermore, the anatomically-based postprocessing module significantly improved the metrics for all models. Ultimately, the 3D UX-Net with postprocessing achieved the highest accuracy, with mean values of 0.788 (DSC), 0.652 (IoU), 0.23 mm (HD95), 0.083 mm (ASSD), 72.7% (precision), and 87.0% (recall).
conclusion3D UX-Net and Swin UNETR are superior to the UNETR for segmenting small dental structures. Between the two, 3D UX-Net demonstrated statistically significant improvements in overlap and recall. Furthermore, the performances of these models can be significantly enhanced by applying postprocessing strategies based on anatomical characteristics.
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.