ArticleOral radiology2026
Comparison of artificial intelligence methods with manual measurements for mandibular bucco-lingual bone width assessment using cone-beam computed tomography images.
Article in Oral radiology, 2026. 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
objectivesAccurate bucco-lingual bone width measurement is essential for implant planning. Manual cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) assessment is time-intensive and operator-dependent. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of an artificial intelligence (AI)–based system for automated bone width measurement compared with manual methods.
methodsA retrospective diagnostic accuracy study was conducted using 300 CBCT scans of posterior mandibular edentulous sites. Manual bucco-lingual bone width was measured at 2-mm intervals from the alveolar crest to 2 mm superior to the mandibular canal. A deep learning framework with U-Net + + was trained to segment the alveolar ridge and mandibular canal, followed by automated bone width measurements. Model performance was assessed using Dice score, Intersection over Union (IoU), precision, and recall for segmentation accuracy, and regression metrics (mean squared error [MSE], mean absolute error [MAE], root mean squared error [RMSE], and coefficient of determination [R²]) for comparison with manual measurements.
resultsU-Net + + demonstrated high accuracy for alveolar ridge segmentation (Dice score, 0.9798; IoU, 0.9606; precision, 0.9820; recall, 0.9778) and moderate accuracy for mandibular canal segmentation (Dice score, 0.5640). Automated bucco-lingual width measurements showed reasonable correspondence with manual values (MSE, 1.9700 mm²; MAE, 1.1900 mm; RMSE, 1.4000 mm; R², 0.5300). Qualitative analysis confirmed high visual correspondence for ridge segmentation, though variability persisted in canal delineation.
conclusionsThe AI-based U-Net + + system reliably segmented the alveolar ridge and provided bone width measurements with moderate agreement to manual methods. Mandibular canal segmentation remained a limitation. Broader validation across jaw regions and imaging systems is recommended to enhance clinical utility.
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.