Reliability of Artificial Intelligence-based Cone Beam Computed Tomography Integration with Digital Dental Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to introduce cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) digitization and integration of digital dental images (DDI) based on artificial intelligence (AI)-based registration (ABR) and to evaluate the reliability and reproducibility using this method compared with those of surface-based registration (SBR). This retrospective study consisted of CBCT images and DDI of 17 patients who had undergone computer-aided bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. The digitization of CBCT images and their integration with DDI were repeated using an AI-based program. CBCT images and DDI were integrated using a point-to-point registration. In contrast, with the SBR method, the three landmarks were identified manually on the CBCT and DDI, which were integrated with the iterative closest points method. After two repeated integrations of each method, the three-dimensional coordinate values of the first maxillary molars and central incisors and their differences were obtained. Intraclass coefficient (ICC) testing was performed to evaluate intra-observer reliability with each method's coordinates and compare their reliability between the ABR and SBR. The intra-observer reliability showed significant and almost perfect ICC in each method. There was no significance in the mean difference between the first and second registrations in each ABR and SBR and between both methods; however, their ranges were narrower with ABR than with the SBR method. This study shows that AI-based digitization and integration are reliable and reproducible.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".