MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1016/j.jdent.2026.106345

Медицинская библиотека · Journal of dentistry · 2026

Comparative analysis of five AI platforms for mandibular canal segmentation on CBCT images.

Shujaat Sohaib, Alotaibi Razan, Aldakhil Amal, Alola Bassam Al, Abolemaaty Wael, Khinda Paramjit, Saeed Safa, Ibrahim Randa, Aboalela Ali Anwar, Orhan Kaan, Morgan Nermin

СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

OBJECTIVES

Accurate mandibular canal (MC) identification on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is vital to prevent inferior alveolar nerve injury during oral and maxillofacial procedures. Manual segmentation is time-consuming and operator-dependent, while artificial intelligence (AI) offers automated, reproducible alternatives. This study compared the accuracy of automated MC segmentation across five AI platforms using standardized quantitative and qualitative evaluations.

METHODS

A total of 120 anonymized CBCT scans (240 MCs) were analyzed using five fully automated AI-based segmentation platforms: Atomica (Atomica AI, USA), BlueSkyPlan (Blue Sky Bio, USA), Craniocatch (Craniocatch, Türkiye), 3D Slicer (open-source, USA), and Relu Creator (Relu BV, Belgium). Expert-annotated models served as reference. Accuracy was quantified as unsigned mean surface deviation and categorized as optimal (<0.5 mm), acceptable (0.5-2.0 mm), or unacceptable (>2.0 mm). Qualitative evaluation employed a five-point anatomical fidelity scale. Segment-wise, laterality, and scanner-wise effects were also assessed.

RESULTS

Significant performance differences were observed among platforms (p < 0.001). Relu Creator and 3D Slicer achieved the highest overall accuracy (≈0.5 mm) with no >2.0 mm deviations in the complete-canal analysis. Craniocatch showed moderate accuracy, while Atomica and BlueSkyPlan exhibited greater variability and more deviations > 2.0 mm. Qualitative scores reflected similar trends. Regionally, middle canal segments showed the best accuracy, with higher deviations near the mandibular and mental foramina. Scanner- and side-related effects were statistically significant but clinically negligible.

CONCLUSION

AI-based MC segmentation accuracy varies across platforms. Relu Creator and 3D Slicer achieved near-expert performance suitable for clinical use, while others require expert verification. Independent benchmarking and multi-scanner validation are essential for safe implementation.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides evidence-based guidance on the accuracy of AI tools for automated MC segmentation, supporting safer surgical planning by identifying which AI-generated outputs can be trusted and where expert verification remains essential to prevent nerve injury.

Для цитирования: Shujaat Sohaib, Alotaibi Razan, Aldakhil Amal, Alola Bassam Al, Abolemaaty Wael, Khinda Paramjit, Saeed Safa, Ibrahim Randa, Aboalela Ali Anwar, Orhan Kaan, Morgan Nermin. Comparative analysis of five AI platforms for mandibular canal segmentation on CBCT images.. Journal of dentistry. 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2026.106345.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.