ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
Quantitative Assessment of Third Molar Extraction Difficulty and Nerve Injury Risk Using Artificial Intelligence and Image Processing.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTooth pattern and surrounding tissue can affect the complexity of third molar (3M) extraction surgery. This study aimed to develop a new, more precise 3M extraction difficulty assessment scoring system by applying image computational techniques and artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies to panoramic radiography images.
methodsWe used dental panoramic X-ray data of patients aged 16 to 86 years. The mandibular canal (MC), inner area of alveolar bone (IAAB), and 3M were detected and segmented using an AI-based deep learning model. We developed algorithms to evaluate the difficulty of 3M extraction and the risk of inferior alveolar nerve damage. The inclination of the 3M (1-4 points), impaction depth of the 3M (1-4 points), and proximity between the mandibular third molar (M3M) and MC (0-4) were classified and scored. The scores obtained from each algorithm were summed to classify the difficulty index as very easy (2-4), easy (5-6), slightly difficult (7-9), and very difficult (10-12).
resultsThe average precisions of the maxillary 3M and M3M detection models were 0.93 and 0.97, respectively. Moreover, the average accuracies of the 3M inclination classification algorithm, 3M impaction depth calculation algorithm, and the proximity of M3M and MC algorithms were 0.8544, 0.9515, and 0.8991, respectively.
conclusionThe developed extraction difficulty scoring model can aid dentists in assessing the risk of 3M extraction and establish an appropriate surgical plan. Future studies should include more diverse patient data and improve the performance of the AI models to realize clinical implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41968213What 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.