ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2026
A novel fluoride tray-assisted workflow for artificial intelligence-driven automated maxillary gingival segmentation on cone beam CT.
Article in Dento maxillo facial 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo clinically validate an artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool for automated maxillary gingival segmentation of marginal and supracrestal gingiva on cone beam CT (CBCT) scans using a novel soft tissue separation technique with a fluoride tray.
methodsA validation set of 35 CBCT scans, covering maxilla, acquired with fluoride trays was processed using a cloud-based AI platform (Relu, Leuven, Belgium) for gingival segmentation. The resulting models were refined by an expert using 3-dimensional (3D) mesh-processing software and compared with the original AI outputs to assess accuracy. Additionally, 6 CBCT scans were manually segmented, using intraoral scans as reference, and compared with the AI model. Surface-based and voxel-wise analyses, color-coded maps, consistency, and time-efficiency were evaluated. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to assess time differences among methods.
resultsArtificial intelligence vs expert refinement showed strong agreement with high overlap (medianDSC ≥ 96%) and minor surface deviations (medianMSD∼0.00 mm). Minor differences were found between anterior and posterior regions (medianΔDSC = 1%, ΔMSD∼0.00 mm). Artificial intelligence vs manual segmentations showed median dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of 82% and small median MSD of 0.15 mm. Labial/buccal area showed the highest surface deviations from color-coded maps. Bland-Altman plots showed low intra- and inter-operator consistency in time, while AI showed excellent consistency. Artificial intelligence demonstrated significantly faster segmentation, achieving 4x faster with expert refinement and 20x faster with manual approach.
conclusionThe use of fluoride tray facilitates separation of oral soft tissues on CBCT scans, enabling accurate and time-efficient AI-driven segmentation of maxillary marginal and supracrestal gingiva. This supports integration into digital workflows and more efficient treatment planning. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The use of a fluoride tray for soft tissue separation during CBCT scans facilitates gingival visualization while maintaining patient comfort. The resulting 3D gingival models from AI-based segmentation can be integrated with automatically segmented dentomaxillofacial structures, enhancing clinical visualization of oral soft and hard tissues and facilitating diagnosis and treatment planning, including periodontal evaluation, implant planning, prosthodontics, and orthodontics.
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.