Comparisons of AI automated segmentation techniques to manual segmentation techniques of the maxilla and maxillary sinus for CT or CBCT scans-A Systematic review.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Joon Ha Park, Mustafa Hamimi, Joanne Jung Eun Choi, Carlos Marcelo S Figueredo, Mr Andrew Cameron
{"title":"Comparisons of AI automated segmentation techniques to manual segmentation techniques of the maxilla and maxillary sinus for CT or CBCT scans-A Systematic review.","authors":"Joon Ha Park, Mustafa Hamimi, Joanne Jung Eun Choi, Carlos Marcelo S Figueredo, Mr Andrew Cameron","doi":"10.1093/dmfr/twaf042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Accurate segmentation of the maxillary sinus from medical images is essential for diagnostic purposes and surgical planning. Manual segmentation of the maxillary sinus, while the gold standard, is time consuming and requires adequate training. To overcome this problem, AI enabled automatic segmentation software's developed. The purpose of this review is to systematically analyse the current literature to investigate the accuracy and efficiency of automatic segmentation techniques of the maxillary sinus to manual segmentation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic approach to perform a thorough analysis of the existing literature using PRISMA guidelines. Data for this study was obtained from Pubmed, Medline, Embase, and Google Scholar databases. The inclusion and exclusion eligibility criteria were used to shortlist relevant studies. The sample size, anatomical structures segmented, experience of operators, type of manual segmentation software used, type of automatic segmentation software used, statistical comparative method used, and length of time of segmentation were analysed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This systematic review presents 10 studies that compared the accuracy and efficiency of automatic segmentation of the maxillary sinus to manual segmentation. All the studies included in this study were found to have a low risk of bias. Samples sizes ranged from 3 to 144, a variety of operators were used to manually segment the CBCT and segmentation was made primarily to 3D slicer and Mimics software. The comparison was primarily made to Unet architecture softwares, with the dice-coefficient being the primary means of comparison.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review showed that automatic segmentation technique was consistently faster than manual segmentation techniques and over 90% accurate when compared to the gold standard of manual segmentation.</p>","PeriodicalId":11261,"journal":{"name":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/dmfr/twaf042","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Accurate segmentation of the maxillary sinus from medical images is essential for diagnostic purposes and surgical planning. Manual segmentation of the maxillary sinus, while the gold standard, is time consuming and requires adequate training. To overcome this problem, AI enabled automatic segmentation software's developed. The purpose of this review is to systematically analyse the current literature to investigate the accuracy and efficiency of automatic segmentation techniques of the maxillary sinus to manual segmentation.

Methods: A systematic approach to perform a thorough analysis of the existing literature using PRISMA guidelines. Data for this study was obtained from Pubmed, Medline, Embase, and Google Scholar databases. The inclusion and exclusion eligibility criteria were used to shortlist relevant studies. The sample size, anatomical structures segmented, experience of operators, type of manual segmentation software used, type of automatic segmentation software used, statistical comparative method used, and length of time of segmentation were analysed.

Results: This systematic review presents 10 studies that compared the accuracy and efficiency of automatic segmentation of the maxillary sinus to manual segmentation. All the studies included in this study were found to have a low risk of bias. Samples sizes ranged from 3 to 144, a variety of operators were used to manually segment the CBCT and segmentation was made primarily to 3D slicer and Mimics software. The comparison was primarily made to Unet architecture softwares, with the dice-coefficient being the primary means of comparison.

Conclusions: This systematic review showed that automatic segmentation technique was consistently faster than manual segmentation techniques and over 90% accurate when compared to the gold standard of manual segmentation.

上颌和上颌窦CT或CBCT扫描人工分割技术与人工分割技术的比较——系统综述。
目的:上颌窦的医学图像的准确分割是必不可少的诊断目的和手术计划。手工分割上颌窦,虽然是金标准,是费时的,需要充分的培训。为了解决这个问题,开发了人工智能自动分割软件。本文旨在系统分析现有文献,探讨上颌窦自动分割技术与人工分割技术的准确性和效率。方法:使用PRISMA指南对现有文献进行系统的全面分析。本研究的数据来自Pubmed、Medline、Embase和谷歌Scholar数据库。采用纳入和排除标准筛选相关研究。分析了样本量、分割的解剖结构、操作人员的经验、使用的人工分割软件类型、使用的自动分割软件类型、使用的统计比较法、分割的时间长短。结果:本系统综述了10项研究,比较了上颌窦自动分割与人工分割的准确性和效率。本研究纳入的所有研究均为低偏倚风险。样本量从3到144不等,使用多种操作符手动分割CBCT,主要使用3D切片器和Mimics软件进行分割。比较主要是对Unet架构软件进行的,以骰子系数作为比较的主要手段。结论:本系统综述表明,自动分割技术始终比人工分割技术快,与人工分割金标准相比,准确率在90%以上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
65
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (DMFR) is the journal of the International Association of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (IADMFR) and covers the closely related fields of oral radiology and head and neck imaging. Established in 1972, DMFR is a key resource keeping dentists, radiologists and clinicians and scientists with an interest in Head and Neck imaging abreast of important research and developments in oral and maxillofacial radiology. The DMFR editorial board features a panel of international experts including Editor-in-Chief Professor Ralf Schulze. Our editorial board provide their expertise and guidance in shaping the content and direction of the journal. Quick Facts: - 2015 Impact Factor - 1.919 - Receipt to first decision - average of 3 weeks - Acceptance to online publication - average of 3 weeks - Open access option - ISSN: 0250-832X - eISSN: 1476-542X
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信