Deep learning for tooth identification and enumeration in panoramic radiographs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Dentists begin the diagnosis by identifying and enumerating teeth. Panoramic radiographs are widely used for tooth identification due to their large field of view and low exposure dose. The automatic numbering of teeth in panoramic radiographs can assist clinicians in avoiding errors. Deep learning has emerged as a promising tool for automating tasks. Our goal is to evaluate the accuracy of a two-step deep learning method for tooth identification and enumeration in panoramic radiographs. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective observational study, 1007 panoramic radiographs were labeled by three experienced dentists. It involved drawing bounding boxes in two distinct ways: one for teeth and one for quadrants. All images were preprocessed using the contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization method. First, panoramic images were allocated to a quadrant detection model, and the outputs of this model were provided to the tooth numbering models. A faster region-based convolutional neural network model was used in each step. Results: Average precision (AP) was calculated in different intersection-over-union thresholds. The AP50 of quadrant detection and tooth enumeration was 100% and 95%, respectively. Conclusion: We have obtained promising results with a high level of AP using our two-step deep learning framework for automatic tooth enumeration on panoramic radiographs. Further research should be conducted on diverse datasets and real-life situations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".