Is Manual Segmentation the Real Gold Standard for Tooth Segmentation? A Preliminary in vivo Study Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography Images

dc.authoridBoyacioglu, Hayal/0000-0003-0887-0302
dc.authoridSABANCI, SERCAN/0000-0002-0699-307X
dc.contributor.authorSabanci, Sercan
dc.contributor.authorSener, Elif
dc.contributor.authorTurhal, Rukiye Irmak
dc.contributor.authorGurses, Baris Oguz
dc.contributor.authorGovsa, Figen
dc.contributor.authorTekin, Ugur
dc.contributor.authorBaltaci, Aysun
dc.date.accessioned2023-01-12T20:16:46Z
dc.date.available2023-01-12T20:16:46Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.departmentN/A/Departmenten_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: This study aimed to assess whether manual segmentation is an accurate method in tooth volume measurement and to compare the outcomes of manual, automatic, and semiautomatic segmentations on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images by comparing each system with the water displacement method, which is the gold standard. Materials and Methods: CBCT images of l0 maxillary impacted teeth were used in this preliminary in vivo study. Following the acquisition of CBCT scans, manual, automatic, and semiautomatic segmentations were completed by the same operator. After surgical removal, the volumes of all impacted teeth were measured with the water displacement method, which was used as the gold standard. The volume of each segmented image was measured in mm(3) using the 3D-Doctor software. The established volumes of each segmented image were compared with those of the gold standard using the 95% confidence interval bootstrap percentiles. Intraobserver reliability was determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Results: All segmentation methods revealed significantly different volume values both from the gold standard and from each other (p=0.000). The semiautomatic segmentation demonstrated comparable performance with the manual method, and both systems provided comparable volumes with the gold standard than did the automatic method. Excellent intra-observer intraclass correlations were found for all protocols. Conclusion: The actual volumes of the specimen were not obtained by manual, semiautomatic, and automatic segmentations. Semiautomatic segmentation demonstrated comparable performance to the manual method, whereas automatic segmentation yielded the poorest values. The automatic and semiautomatic segmentations may be improved by the development and utilization of novel or hybrid segmentation algorithms for a faster process and more accurate results.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipEge University [17-DIS-015]en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis study was funded by Ege University with Scientific Research project number: 17-DIS-015.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.4274/meandros.galenos.2021.14632
dc.identifier.endpage273en_US
dc.identifier.issn2149-9063
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.startpage263en_US
dc.identifier.trdizinid503150en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.4274/meandros.galenos.2021.14632
dc.identifier.urihttps://search.trdizin.gov.tr/yayin/detay/503150
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11454/78770
dc.identifier.volume22en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000697234000007en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/Aen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakTR-Dizinen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherGalenos Yayinciliken_US
dc.relation.ispartofMeandros Medical And Dental Journalen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectCone-beam computed tomographyen_US
dc.subjectimage analysisen_US
dc.subjectsegmentationen_US
dc.subjectimpacted toothen_US
dc.subjectVolumetric Measurementen_US
dc.subjectTeethen_US
dc.subjectValidationen_US
dc.subjectAccuracyen_US
dc.subjectAutotransplantationen_US
dc.subjectCystsen_US
dc.subjectCten_US
dc.titleIs Manual Segmentation the Real Gold Standard for Tooth Segmentation? A Preliminary in vivo Study Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography Imagesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar