ArticleJournal of oral rehabilitation2026
Can Deep Learning Methods Differentiate Temporomandibular Joint Disorders From Healthy Joints? A 3D Artificial Intelligence Algorithm Study Based on CBCT Images.
Article in Journal of oral rehabilitation, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGiven the high difficulty of interpreting complex bone-related temporomandibular joint disorders (TMD) on CBCT scans, developing advanced artificial intelligence models has become essential for accurate diagnosis and detailed subcategorization.
objectivesThis study aimed to develop deep learning models capable of performing a wide range of tasks in the evaluation of the temporomandibular joint on CBCT scans.
methodsThis study followed a four-stage design. First, an nnU-Net v2-based model was developed for automatic segmentation of mandibular condyles on CBCT images. Second, a 3D CNN model was trained to classify healthy and pathological condyles. Third, a 3D CNN was used to differentiate five TMD types. In the fourth stage, for exploratory analysis purposes, an nnU-Net v2-based model was implemented to grade the severity of erosion, osteophyte formation and sclerosis.
resultsThe segmentation model achieved automatic segmentation of healthy and pathological condyles with 0.87 DSC and 0.77 IoU values. The classification model achieved an F1-score of 0.65 in distinguishing healthy condyles from TMDs. For differentiating the five TMD types from healthy condyles, the F1-scores were 0.76 for erosion, 0.88 for flattening, 0.86 for osteophyte formation, 0.88 for sclerosis and 0.85 for subchondral cysts. In grading analysis, the highest performance was observed for Grade 1 erosion, Grade 2 osteophyte formation and Grade 3 sclerosis.
conclusionDeep learning algorithms can achieve clinically relevant performance in the segmentation of the mandibular condyle and in differentiating TMDs from healthy condyles. However, further studies with larger and more balanced datasets are needed to improve the ability of these models to classify TMD grades accurately.
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.