Automatic Pulp and Teeth Three-Dimensional Modeling of Single and Multi-Rooted Teeth Based on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Imaging: A Promising Approach With Clinical and Therapeutic Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging offers high-quality three-dimensional (3D) acquisition with great spatial resolution, given by the use of isometric voxels, when compared with conventional computed tomography (CT). The current literature supports a median reduction of 76% (up to 85% reduction) of patients' radiation exposure when imaged by CBCT versus CT. Clinical applications of CBCT imaging can benefit both medical and dental professions. Because these images are digital, the use of algorithms can facilitate the diagnosis of pathologies and the management of patients. There is pertinence to developing rapid and efficient segmentation of teeth from facial volumes acquired with CBCT. Methodology In this paper, a segmentation algorithm using heuristics based on pulp and teeth anatomy as a pre-personalized model is proposed for both single and multi-rooted teeth. Results A quantitative analysis was performed by comparing the results of the algorithm to a gold standard obtained from manual segmentation using the Dice index, average surface distance (ASD), and Mahalanobis distance (MHD) metrics. Qualitative analysis was also performed between the algorithm and the gold standard of 78 teeth. The Dice index average for all pulp segmentation (n = 78) was 83.82% (SD = 6.54%). ASD for all pulp segmentation (n = 78) was 0.21 mm (SD = 0.34 mm). Pulp segmentation compared with MHD averages was 0.19 mm (SD = 0.21 mm). The results of teeth segmentation metrics were similar to pulp segmentation metrics. For the total teeth (n = 78) included in this study, the Dice index average was 92% (SD = 13.10%), ASD was low at 0.19 mm (SD = 0.15 mm), and MHD was 0.11 mm (SD = 0.09 mm). Despite good quantitative results, the qualitative analysis yielded fair results due to large categories. When compared with existing automatic segmentation methods, our approach enables an effective segmentation for both pulp and teeth. Conclusions Our proposed algorithm for pulp and teeth segmentation yields results that are comparable to those obtained by the state-of-the-art methods in both quantitative and qualitative analysis, thus offering interesting perspectives in many clinical fields of dentistry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".