ArticleJournal of dental sciences2026
Artificial intelligence-enabled automatic segmentation of impacted mandibular third molars: A comprehensive comparison of multiple algorithms.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Impacted mandibular third molar models generated from cone-beam computed tomography images facilitates preoperative assessment and surgical planning. Despite recent applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in tooth segmentation, its performance in mandibular third molar segmentation remains underexplored. This study aims to develop a comprehensive comparison of available algorithms for mandibular third molar segmentation for clinical applications and research. Materials and methods: Forty impacted mandibular third molars were segmented using interactive thresholding (Thresholding), Blue Sky Plan (BSP AI), Blue Sky Plan with manual adjustments (BSP AI with adjustment), and Planmeca Romexis (Romexis AI), with manual segmentation as reference standard. Segmentation accuracy was assessed using dice similarity coefficient (DSC), intersection over union (IoU), average symmetric surface distance (ASSD), 95 % Hausdorff distance (95HD) and relative volume difference (RVD). Segmentation quality was evaluated based on morphology, three-dimensional visualization, and spatial relationships with adjacent structures. Results: BSP AI with adjustment achieved the highest accuracy (DSC: 0.89 ± 0.02, 95HD: 0.85 ± 0.25 mm), followed by Thresholding (DSC: 0.86 ± 0.03; 95HD: 1.28 ± 0.23 mm) and BSP AI (DSC: 0.85 ± 0.08; 95HD: 1.91 ± 1.91 mm). Romexis AI (DSC: 0.81 ± 0.03; 95HD: 1.41 ± 0.32 mm) demonstrated the poorest performance. BSP AI with adjustment achieved the highest quality score of 38.00 (38.00-39.00), similar to Thresholding achieving 38.00 (37.25-39.00), followed by BSP AI and Romexis AI being the last. Conclusion: AI-enabled segmentation achieved high accuracy and efficiency in mandibular third molar segmentation, while manual adjustment ensured optimal quality. Further research is warranted to promote future enhancement and clinical applications of AI-enabled mandibular third molar segmentation.
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.