ArticleFrontiers in oral health2026
Validation of a commercial intraoral auto-segmentation algorithm against expert-annotated clinical data with comparison to a transparent algorithm.
Article in Frontiers in oral health, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based tooth segmentation has the potential to improve the efficiency and consistency of digital clinical workflows; however, the generalizability of commercially available algorithms on clinical datasets and their interpretability remain limited. Methods: This study proposed a two-level evaluation method. It evaluated the performance of a black-box commercial algorithm using an expert-annotated clinical reference dataset of 126 intraoral scans representing diverse clinical presentations, including severe crowding, spacing, missing teeth, and dental restorations. Two specialists independently generated reference annotations. In the next level, a transparent two-stage segmentation method combining YOLOv8-based tooth localization and numbering with a 3D U-Net segmentation model was developed using 80 scans from an open-source dataset and evaluated alongside the commercial algorithm. Performance was evaluated using the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and tooth classification accuracy. Tooth detection and numbering were assessed descriptively using confusion matrices and accuracy. End-to-end segmentation performance was compared at the scan level using paired parametric or nonparametric tests, depending on the distribution of paired differences. Regional performance differences between anterior and posterior regions and between maxillary and mandibular jaws were assessed using independent parametric or nonparametric tests, as appropriate. Results: The commercial algorithm achieved significantly higher segmentation performance than the transparent model, with a median DSC of 0.90 (IQR 0.86-0.95) versus 0.76 (IQR 0.66-0.84), respectively ( Discussion: The commercial algorithm demonstrated strong segmentation performance on an independent, expert-annotated clinical dataset. Although the transparent approach achieved lower segmentation accuracy, it offered greater methodological transparency and insight into decision-making.
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.