Panagiotis Ntovas, Laurent Marchand, Matthew Finkelman, Marta Revilla-León, Wael Att
{"title":"基于人工智能的 CBCT 下颌管分割的准确性。","authors":"Panagiotis Ntovas, Laurent Marchand, Matthew Finkelman, Marta Revilla-León, Wael Att","doi":"10.1111/clr.14307","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To investigate the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI)-based segmentation of the mandibular canal, compared to the conventional manual tracing, implementing implant planning software.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and methods</h3>\n \n <p>Localization of the mandibular canals was performed for 104 randomly selected patients. A localization was performed by three experienced clinicians in order to serve as control. Five tracings were performed: One from a clinician with a moderate experience with a manual tracing (I<sub>1</sub>), followed by the implementation of an automatic refinement (I<sub>2</sub>), one manual from a dental student (S<sub>1</sub>), and one from the experienced clinician, followed by an automatic refinement (E). Subsequently, two fully automatic AI-driven segmentations were performed (A<sub>1</sub>,A<sub>2</sub>). The accuracy between each method was measured using root mean square error calculation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The discrepancy among the models of the mandibular canals, between the experienced clinicians and each investigated method ranged from 0.21 to 7.65 mm with a mean of 3.5 mm RMS error. The analysis of each separate mandibular canal's section revealed that mean RMS error was higher in the posterior and anterior loop compared to the middle section. Regarding time efficiency, tracing by experienced users required more time compared to AI-driven segmentation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The experience of the clinician had a significant influence on the accuracy of mandibular canal's localization. An AI-driven segmentation of the mandibular canal constitutes a time-efficient and reliable procedure for pre-operative implant planning. Nevertheless, AI-based segmentation results should always be verified, as a subsequent manual refinement of the initial segmentation may be required to avoid clinical significant errors.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of artificial intelligence-based segmentation of the mandibular canal in CBCT\",\"authors\":\"Panagiotis Ntovas, Laurent Marchand, Matthew Finkelman, Marta Revilla-León, Wael Att\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/clr.14307\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>To investigate the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI)-based segmentation of the mandibular canal, compared to the conventional manual tracing, implementing implant planning software.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Materials and methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Localization of the mandibular canals was performed for 104 randomly selected patients. A localization was performed by three experienced clinicians in order to serve as control. Five tracings were performed: One from a clinician with a moderate experience with a manual tracing (I<sub>1</sub>), followed by the implementation of an automatic refinement (I<sub>2</sub>), one manual from a dental student (S<sub>1</sub>), and one from the experienced clinician, followed by an automatic refinement (E). Subsequently, two fully automatic AI-driven segmentations were performed (A<sub>1</sub>,A<sub>2</sub>). The accuracy between each method was measured using root mean square error calculation.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The discrepancy among the models of the mandibular canals, between the experienced clinicians and each investigated method ranged from 0.21 to 7.65 mm with a mean of 3.5 mm RMS error. The analysis of each separate mandibular canal's section revealed that mean RMS error was higher in the posterior and anterior loop compared to the middle section. Regarding time efficiency, tracing by experienced users required more time compared to AI-driven segmentation.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The experience of the clinician had a significant influence on the accuracy of mandibular canal's localization. An AI-driven segmentation of the mandibular canal constitutes a time-efficient and reliable procedure for pre-operative implant planning. Nevertheless, AI-based segmentation results should always be verified, as a subsequent manual refinement of the initial segmentation may be required to avoid clinical significant errors.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Oral Implants Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Oral Implants Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14307\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14307","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Accuracy of artificial intelligence-based segmentation of the mandibular canal in CBCT
Objectives
To investigate the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI)-based segmentation of the mandibular canal, compared to the conventional manual tracing, implementing implant planning software.
Materials and methods
Localization of the mandibular canals was performed for 104 randomly selected patients. A localization was performed by three experienced clinicians in order to serve as control. Five tracings were performed: One from a clinician with a moderate experience with a manual tracing (I1), followed by the implementation of an automatic refinement (I2), one manual from a dental student (S1), and one from the experienced clinician, followed by an automatic refinement (E). Subsequently, two fully automatic AI-driven segmentations were performed (A1,A2). The accuracy between each method was measured using root mean square error calculation.
Results
The discrepancy among the models of the mandibular canals, between the experienced clinicians and each investigated method ranged from 0.21 to 7.65 mm with a mean of 3.5 mm RMS error. The analysis of each separate mandibular canal's section revealed that mean RMS error was higher in the posterior and anterior loop compared to the middle section. Regarding time efficiency, tracing by experienced users required more time compared to AI-driven segmentation.
Conclusions
The experience of the clinician had a significant influence on the accuracy of mandibular canal's localization. An AI-driven segmentation of the mandibular canal constitutes a time-efficient and reliable procedure for pre-operative implant planning. Nevertheless, AI-based segmentation results should always be verified, as a subsequent manual refinement of the initial segmentation may be required to avoid clinical significant errors.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.