KyeongHwan Han, JaeHyung Lim, Jin-Soo Ahn, Ki-Sun Lee
{"title":"基于SAM2算法的牙齿自动分割及阴影指南的深度学习评估","authors":"KyeongHwan Han, JaeHyung Lim, Jin-Soo Ahn, Ki-Sun Lee","doi":"10.3390/bioengineering12090959","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Accurate shade matching is essential in restorative and prosthetic dentistry yet remains difficult due to subjectivity in visual assessments. We develop and evaluate a deep learning approach for the simultaneous segmentation of natural teeth and shade guides in intraoral photographs using four fine-tuned variants of Segment Anything Model 2 (SAM2: tiny, small, base plus, and large) and a UNet baseline trained under the same protocol. The spatial performance was assessed using the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), the Intersection over the Union (IoU), and the 95th-percentile Hausdorff distance normalized by the ground-truth equivalent diameter (HD95). The color consistency within masks was quantified by the coefficient of variation (CV) of the CIELAB components (L*, a*, b*). The perceptual color difference was measured using CIEDE2000 (ΔE00). On a held-out test set, all SAM2 variants achieved a high overlap accuracy; SAM2-large performed best (DSC: 0.987 ± 0.006; IoU: 0.975 ± 0.012; HD95: 1.25 ± 1.80%), followed by SAM2-small (0.987 ± 0.008; 0.974 ± 0.014; 2.96 ± 11.03%), SAM2-base plus (0.985 ± 0.011; 0.971 ± 0.021; 1.71 ± 3.28%), and SAM2-tiny (0.979 ± 0.015; 0.959 ± 0.028; 6.16 ± 11.17%). UNet reached a DSC = 0.972 ± 0.020, an IoU = 0.947 ± 0.035, and an HD95 = 6.54 ± 16.35%. The CV distributions for all of the prediction models closely matched the ground truth (e.g., GT L*: 0.164 ± 0.040; UNet: 0.144 ± 0.028; SAM2-small: 0.164 ± 0.038; SAM2-base plus: 0.162 ± 0.039). The full-mask ΔE00 was low across models, with the summary statistics reported as the median (mean ± SD): UNet: 0.325 (0.487 ± 0.364); SAM2-tiny: 0.162 (0.410 ± 0.665); SAM2-small: 0.078 (0.126 ± 0.166); SAM2-base plus: 0.072 (0.198 ± 0.417); SAM2-large: 0.065 (0.167 ± 0.257). These ΔE00 values lie well below the ≈1 just noticeable difference threshold on average, indicating close chromatic agreement between the predictions and annotations. Within a single dataset and training protocol, fine-tuned SAM2, especially its larger variants, provides robust spatial accuracy, boundary reliability, and color fidelity suitable for clinical shade-matching workflows, while UNet offers a competitive convolutional baseline. These results indicate technical feasibility rather than clinical validation; broader baselines and external, multi-center evaluations are needed to determine its suitability for routine shade-matching workflows.</p>","PeriodicalId":8874,"journal":{"name":"Bioengineering","volume":"12 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12467639/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Evaluation of a Deep Learning Approach to Automatic Segmentation of Teeth and Shade Guides for Tooth Shade Matching Using the SAM2 Algorithm.\",\"authors\":\"KyeongHwan Han, JaeHyung Lim, Jin-Soo Ahn, Ki-Sun Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/bioengineering12090959\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Accurate shade matching is essential in restorative and prosthetic dentistry yet remains difficult due to subjectivity in visual assessments. We develop and evaluate a deep learning approach for the simultaneous segmentation of natural teeth and shade guides in intraoral photographs using four fine-tuned variants of Segment Anything Model 2 (SAM2: tiny, small, base plus, and large) and a UNet baseline trained under the same protocol. The spatial performance was assessed using the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), the Intersection over the Union (IoU), and the 95th-percentile Hausdorff distance normalized by the ground-truth equivalent diameter (HD95). The color consistency within masks was quantified by the coefficient of variation (CV) of the CIELAB components (L*, a*, b*). The perceptual color difference was measured using CIEDE2000 (ΔE00). On a held-out test set, all SAM2 variants achieved a high overlap accuracy; SAM2-large performed best (DSC: 0.987 ± 0.006; IoU: 0.975 ± 0.012; HD95: 1.25 ± 1.80%), followed by SAM2-small (0.987 ± 0.008; 0.974 ± 0.014; 2.96 ± 11.03%), SAM2-base plus (0.985 ± 0.011; 0.971 ± 0.021; 1.71 ± 3.28%), and SAM2-tiny (0.979 ± 0.015; 0.959 ± 0.028; 6.16 ± 11.17%). UNet reached a DSC = 0.972 ± 0.020, an IoU = 0.947 ± 0.035, and an HD95 = 6.54 ± 16.35%. The CV distributions for all of the prediction models closely matched the ground truth (e.g., GT L*: 0.164 ± 0.040; UNet: 0.144 ± 0.028; SAM2-small: 0.164 ± 0.038; SAM2-base plus: 0.162 ± 0.039). The full-mask ΔE00 was low across models, with the summary statistics reported as the median (mean ± SD): UNet: 0.325 (0.487 ± 0.364); SAM2-tiny: 0.162 (0.410 ± 0.665); SAM2-small: 0.078 (0.126 ± 0.166); SAM2-base plus: 0.072 (0.198 ± 0.417); SAM2-large: 0.065 (0.167 ± 0.257). These ΔE00 values lie well below the ≈1 just noticeable difference threshold on average, indicating close chromatic agreement between the predictions and annotations. Within a single dataset and training protocol, fine-tuned SAM2, especially its larger variants, provides robust spatial accuracy, boundary reliability, and color fidelity suitable for clinical shade-matching workflows, while UNet offers a competitive convolutional baseline. These results indicate technical feasibility rather than clinical validation; broader baselines and external, multi-center evaluations are needed to determine its suitability for routine shade-matching workflows.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8874,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bioengineering\",\"volume\":\"12 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12467639/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bioengineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12090959\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioengineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12090959","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Evaluation of a Deep Learning Approach to Automatic Segmentation of Teeth and Shade Guides for Tooth Shade Matching Using the SAM2 Algorithm.
Accurate shade matching is essential in restorative and prosthetic dentistry yet remains difficult due to subjectivity in visual assessments. We develop and evaluate a deep learning approach for the simultaneous segmentation of natural teeth and shade guides in intraoral photographs using four fine-tuned variants of Segment Anything Model 2 (SAM2: tiny, small, base plus, and large) and a UNet baseline trained under the same protocol. The spatial performance was assessed using the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), the Intersection over the Union (IoU), and the 95th-percentile Hausdorff distance normalized by the ground-truth equivalent diameter (HD95). The color consistency within masks was quantified by the coefficient of variation (CV) of the CIELAB components (L*, a*, b*). The perceptual color difference was measured using CIEDE2000 (ΔE00). On a held-out test set, all SAM2 variants achieved a high overlap accuracy; SAM2-large performed best (DSC: 0.987 ± 0.006; IoU: 0.975 ± 0.012; HD95: 1.25 ± 1.80%), followed by SAM2-small (0.987 ± 0.008; 0.974 ± 0.014; 2.96 ± 11.03%), SAM2-base plus (0.985 ± 0.011; 0.971 ± 0.021; 1.71 ± 3.28%), and SAM2-tiny (0.979 ± 0.015; 0.959 ± 0.028; 6.16 ± 11.17%). UNet reached a DSC = 0.972 ± 0.020, an IoU = 0.947 ± 0.035, and an HD95 = 6.54 ± 16.35%. The CV distributions for all of the prediction models closely matched the ground truth (e.g., GT L*: 0.164 ± 0.040; UNet: 0.144 ± 0.028; SAM2-small: 0.164 ± 0.038; SAM2-base plus: 0.162 ± 0.039). The full-mask ΔE00 was low across models, with the summary statistics reported as the median (mean ± SD): UNet: 0.325 (0.487 ± 0.364); SAM2-tiny: 0.162 (0.410 ± 0.665); SAM2-small: 0.078 (0.126 ± 0.166); SAM2-base plus: 0.072 (0.198 ± 0.417); SAM2-large: 0.065 (0.167 ± 0.257). These ΔE00 values lie well below the ≈1 just noticeable difference threshold on average, indicating close chromatic agreement between the predictions and annotations. Within a single dataset and training protocol, fine-tuned SAM2, especially its larger variants, provides robust spatial accuracy, boundary reliability, and color fidelity suitable for clinical shade-matching workflows, while UNet offers a competitive convolutional baseline. These results indicate technical feasibility rather than clinical validation; broader baselines and external, multi-center evaluations are needed to determine its suitability for routine shade-matching workflows.
期刊介绍:
Aims
Bioengineering (ISSN 2306-5354) provides an advanced forum for the science and technology of bioengineering. It publishes original research papers, comprehensive reviews, communications and case reports. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. All aspects of bioengineering are welcomed from theoretical concepts to education and applications. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. There are, in addition, four key features of this Journal:
● We are introducing a new concept in scientific and technical publications “The Translational Case Report in Bioengineering”. It is a descriptive explanatory analysis of a transformative or translational event. Understanding that the goal of bioengineering scholarship is to advance towards a transformative or clinical solution to an identified transformative/clinical need, the translational case report is used to explore causation in order to find underlying principles that may guide other similar transformative/translational undertakings.
● Manuscripts regarding research proposals and research ideas will be particularly welcomed.
● Electronic files and software regarding the full details of the calculation and experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material.
● We also accept manuscripts communicating to a broader audience with regard to research projects financed with public funds.
Scope
● Bionics and biological cybernetics: implantology; bio–abio interfaces
● Bioelectronics: wearable electronics; implantable electronics; “more than Moore” electronics; bioelectronics devices
● Bioprocess and biosystems engineering and applications: bioprocess design; biocatalysis; bioseparation and bioreactors; bioinformatics; bioenergy; etc.
● Biomolecular, cellular and tissue engineering and applications: tissue engineering; chromosome engineering; embryo engineering; cellular, molecular and synthetic biology; metabolic engineering; bio-nanotechnology; micro/nano technologies; genetic engineering; transgenic technology
● Biomedical engineering and applications: biomechatronics; biomedical electronics; biomechanics; biomaterials; biomimetics; biomedical diagnostics; biomedical therapy; biomedical devices; sensors and circuits; biomedical imaging and medical information systems; implants and regenerative medicine; neurotechnology; clinical engineering; rehabilitation engineering
● Biochemical engineering and applications: metabolic pathway engineering; modeling and simulation
● Translational bioengineering