四种种植规划软件中两种不同人工智能模型在种植规划中的性能比较研究。

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Pathompong Roongruangsilp, Walita Narkbuakaew, Pathawee Khongkhunthian
{"title":"四种种植规划软件中两种不同人工智能模型在种植规划中的性能比较研究。","authors":"Pathompong Roongruangsilp, Walita Narkbuakaew, Pathawee Khongkhunthian","doi":"10.1186/s12903-025-06336-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in dental implant planning has emerged as a transformative approach to enhance diagnostic accuracy and efficiency. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of two object detection models, Faster R-CNN and YOLOv7 in analyzing cross-sectional and panoramic images derived from DICOM files processed by four distinct dental imaging software platforms.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The dataset consisted of 332 implant position images derived from DICOM files of 184 CBCT scans. Three hundred images were processed using DentiPlan Pro 3.7 software (NECTEC, NSTDA, Thailand) for the development of Faster R-CNN and YOLOv7 models for dental implant planning. For model testing, 32 additional implant position images, which were not included in the training set, were processed using four different software programs: DentiPlan Pro 3.7, DentiPlan Pro Plus 5.0 (DTP; NECTEC, NSTDA, Thailand), Implastation (ProDigiDent USA, USA), and Romexis 6.0 (Planmeca, Finland). The performance of the models was evaluated using detection rate, accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and the Jaccard Index (JI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Faster R-CNN achieved superior accuracy across imaging modalities, while YOLOv7 demonstrated higher detection rates, albeit with lower precision. The impact of image rendering algorithms on model performance underscores the need for standardized preprocessing pipelines. Although Faster R-CNN demonstrated relatively higher performance metrics, statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between the models (p-value > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study emphasizes the potential of AI-driven solutions in dental implant planning and advocates the need for further research in this area. The absence of statistically significant differences between Faster R-CNN and YOLOv7 suggests that both models can be effectively utilized, depending on the specific requirements for accuracy or detection. Furthermore, the variations in imaging rendering algorithms across different software platforms significantly influenced the model outcomes. AI models for DICOM analysis should rely on standardized image rendering to ensure consistent performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":9072,"journal":{"name":"BMC Oral Health","volume":"25 1","pages":"984"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance of two different artificial intelligence models in dental implant planning among four different implant planning software: a comparative study.\",\"authors\":\"Pathompong Roongruangsilp, Walita Narkbuakaew, Pathawee Khongkhunthian\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12903-025-06336-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in dental implant planning has emerged as a transformative approach to enhance diagnostic accuracy and efficiency. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of two object detection models, Faster R-CNN and YOLOv7 in analyzing cross-sectional and panoramic images derived from DICOM files processed by four distinct dental imaging software platforms.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The dataset consisted of 332 implant position images derived from DICOM files of 184 CBCT scans. Three hundred images were processed using DentiPlan Pro 3.7 software (NECTEC, NSTDA, Thailand) for the development of Faster R-CNN and YOLOv7 models for dental implant planning. For model testing, 32 additional implant position images, which were not included in the training set, were processed using four different software programs: DentiPlan Pro 3.7, DentiPlan Pro Plus 5.0 (DTP; NECTEC, NSTDA, Thailand), Implastation (ProDigiDent USA, USA), and Romexis 6.0 (Planmeca, Finland). The performance of the models was evaluated using detection rate, accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and the Jaccard Index (JI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Faster R-CNN achieved superior accuracy across imaging modalities, while YOLOv7 demonstrated higher detection rates, albeit with lower precision. The impact of image rendering algorithms on model performance underscores the need for standardized preprocessing pipelines. Although Faster R-CNN demonstrated relatively higher performance metrics, statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between the models (p-value > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study emphasizes the potential of AI-driven solutions in dental implant planning and advocates the need for further research in this area. The absence of statistically significant differences between Faster R-CNN and YOLOv7 suggests that both models can be effectively utilized, depending on the specific requirements for accuracy or detection. Furthermore, the variations in imaging rendering algorithms across different software platforms significantly influenced the model outcomes. AI models for DICOM analysis should rely on standardized image rendering to ensure consistent performance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9072,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Oral Health\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"984\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Oral Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-06336-0\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Oral Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-06336-0","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

摘要

背景:人工智能(AI)在牙科种植规划中的集成已经成为提高诊断准确性和效率的一种变革性方法。本研究旨在评估Faster R-CNN和YOLOv7两种目标检测模型在分析四种不同牙科成像软件平台处理的DICOM文件中提取的横断面和全景图像时的性能。方法:数据集由184次CBCT扫描的DICOM文件中获得的332张种植体位置图像组成。使用DentiPlan Pro 3.7软件(NECTEC, NSTDA, Thailand)处理300张图像,开发用于种植体规划的Faster R-CNN和YOLOv7模型。为了进行模型测试,使用四种不同的软件程序处理32张未包括在训练集中的额外种植体位置图像:DentiPlan Pro 3.7, DentiPlan Pro Plus 5.0 (DTP;NECTEC, NSTDA,泰国),Implastation (ProDigiDent USA,美国)和Romexis 6.0 (Planmeca,芬兰)。采用检出率、准确率、精密度、召回率、F1评分和Jaccard指数(JI)对模型的性能进行评价。结果:更快的R-CNN在各种成像模式下都具有更高的准确性,而YOLOv7的检测率更高,尽管精度较低。图像渲染算法对模型性能的影响凸显了标准化预处理管道的必要性。虽然更快的R-CNN表现出相对较高的性能指标,但统计分析显示模型之间没有显著差异(p值> 0.05)。结论:本研究强调了人工智能解决方案在种植体规划中的潜力,并提出了在该领域进一步研究的必要性。Faster R-CNN和YOLOv7之间没有统计学上的显著差异,这表明两种模型都可以有效地使用,具体取决于精度或检测的具体要求。此外,不同软件平台上成像渲染算法的差异显著影响了模型结果。用于DICOM分析的AI模型应该依靠标准化的图像渲染来确保一致的性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Performance of two different artificial intelligence models in dental implant planning among four different implant planning software: a comparative study.

Background: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in dental implant planning has emerged as a transformative approach to enhance diagnostic accuracy and efficiency. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of two object detection models, Faster R-CNN and YOLOv7 in analyzing cross-sectional and panoramic images derived from DICOM files processed by four distinct dental imaging software platforms.

Methods: The dataset consisted of 332 implant position images derived from DICOM files of 184 CBCT scans. Three hundred images were processed using DentiPlan Pro 3.7 software (NECTEC, NSTDA, Thailand) for the development of Faster R-CNN and YOLOv7 models for dental implant planning. For model testing, 32 additional implant position images, which were not included in the training set, were processed using four different software programs: DentiPlan Pro 3.7, DentiPlan Pro Plus 5.0 (DTP; NECTEC, NSTDA, Thailand), Implastation (ProDigiDent USA, USA), and Romexis 6.0 (Planmeca, Finland). The performance of the models was evaluated using detection rate, accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and the Jaccard Index (JI).

Results: Faster R-CNN achieved superior accuracy across imaging modalities, while YOLOv7 demonstrated higher detection rates, albeit with lower precision. The impact of image rendering algorithms on model performance underscores the need for standardized preprocessing pipelines. Although Faster R-CNN demonstrated relatively higher performance metrics, statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between the models (p-value > 0.05).

Conclusions: This study emphasizes the potential of AI-driven solutions in dental implant planning and advocates the need for further research in this area. The absence of statistically significant differences between Faster R-CNN and YOLOv7 suggests that both models can be effectively utilized, depending on the specific requirements for accuracy or detection. Furthermore, the variations in imaging rendering algorithms across different software platforms significantly influenced the model outcomes. AI models for DICOM analysis should rely on standardized image rendering to ensure consistent performance.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Oral Health
BMC Oral Health DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
6.90%
发文量
481
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Oral Health is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of disorders of the mouth, teeth and gums, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
×
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