Robust Segmentation of Partial and Imperfect Dental Arches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automatic and accurate dental arch segmentation is a fundamental task in computer-aided dentistry. Recent trends in digital dentistry are tackling the design of 3D crowns using artificial intelligence, which initially requires a proper semantic segmentation of teeth from intraoral scans (IOS). In practice, most IOS are partial with as few as three teeth on the scanned arch, and some of them might have preparations, missing, or incomplete teeth. Existing deep learning-based methods (e.g., MeshSegNet, DArch) were proposed for dental arch segmentation, but they are not as efficient for partial arches that include imperfections such as missing teeth and preparations. In this work, we present the ArchSeg framework that can leverage various deep learning models for semantic segmentation of perfect and imperfect dental arches. The Point Transformer V2 deep learning model is used as the backbone for the ArchSeg framework. We present experiments to demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed framework to segment arches with various types of imperfections. Using a raw dental arch scan with two labels indicating the range of present teeth in the arch (i.e., the first and the last teeth), our ArchSeg can segment a standalone dental arch or a pair of aligned master/antagonist arches with more available information (i.e., die mesh). Two generic models are trained for lower and upper arches; they achieve dice similarity coefficient scores of 0.936±0.008 and 0.948±0.007, respectively, on test sets composed of challenging imperfect arches. Our work also highlights the impact of appropriate data pre-processing and post-processing on the final segmentation performance. Our ablation study shows that the segmentation performance of the Point Transformer V2 model integrated in our framework is improved compared with the original standalone model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".