File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: AI-driven CBCT segmentation and 3D modeling of the anterior surface of maxilla for computer-assisted surgery: a comparison of multiple algorithms

TitleAI-driven CBCT segmentation and 3D modeling of the anterior surface of maxilla for computer-assisted surgery: a comparison of multiple algorithms
Authors
Keywords3D modeling
Artificial intelligence
CBCT segmentation
Computer-assisted surgery
Maxilla
Patient-specific surgical plates
Thin bone
Virtual surgical planning
Issue Date22-Jul-2025
PublisherElsevier
Citation
Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, 2025 How to Cite?
AbstractAims: The maxilla is frequently involved in virtual surgical planning (VSP), serving as a base for osteotomies and designing patient-specific devices. However, segmenting thin bone structures like the anterior surface of the maxilla is challenging, often resulting in defects that compromise VSP. Our study aimed to compare various segmentation and 3D modeling algorithms for the anterior surface of the maxilla in CBCT, to serve as a reference for clinical practice. Materials and methods: The study included 20 patients preparing for orthognathic joint surgery. Various segmentation and 3D modeling algorithms were compared, including manual segmentation, threshold segmentation, 3D hole repairing, and AI segmentation, using Mimics Viewer and Blue Sky Plan software. The accuracy of each segmentation method was evaluated using the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and 95 % Hausdorff distance (HD95). Additionally, the clinical applicability of the 3D models was qualitatively evaluated using questionnaires focused on surface consistency, structural completeness, surface smoothness and noise, accuracy of anatomical features, and overall suitability for virtual surgical planning. Statistical analysis was performed using non-parametric tests. Results: For segmentation accuracy, threshold segmentation and 3D hole repairing achieved significantly higher DSC and HD95 compared with other algorithms. AI segmentation in Mimics Viewer achieved a DSC of 0.90 ± 0.03 and an HD95 of 0.72 ± 0.50 mm, less than 1 mm.With regard to the qualitative assessment of clinical applicability, the score for Mimics Viewer was 3 (IQR: 3–4; p < 0.001), which outperformed the other algorithms for accuracy of anatomical features. Blue Sky Plan had the lowest median DSC (0.78 ± 0.12) and highest HD95 (2.02 ± 0.80 mm). Conclusion: 3D hole repairing using 3-matic gave the best performance in terms of both accuracy and quality assessment for the anterior surface of the maxilla. AI-driven segmentation using Mimics Viewer, designed specifically for craniomaxillofacial surgery, provides optimal performance and could be a valuable tool in VSP.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/358797
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 2.1
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.031

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLo, Hei Yuet-
dc.contributor.authorLeung, Pui Hang-
dc.contributor.authorSu, Yu xiong-
dc.contributor.authorLeung, Yiu Yan-
dc.contributor.authorYeung, Andy Wai Kan-
dc.contributor.authorYang, Wei fa-
dc.date.accessioned2025-08-13T07:48:07Z-
dc.date.available2025-08-13T07:48:07Z-
dc.date.issued2025-07-22-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, 2025-
dc.identifier.issn1010-5182-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/358797-
dc.description.abstractAims: The maxilla is frequently involved in virtual surgical planning (VSP), serving as a base for osteotomies and designing patient-specific devices. However, segmenting thin bone structures like the anterior surface of the maxilla is challenging, often resulting in defects that compromise VSP. Our study aimed to compare various segmentation and 3D modeling algorithms for the anterior surface of the maxilla in CBCT, to serve as a reference for clinical practice. Materials and methods: The study included 20 patients preparing for orthognathic joint surgery. Various segmentation and 3D modeling algorithms were compared, including manual segmentation, threshold segmentation, 3D hole repairing, and AI segmentation, using Mimics Viewer and Blue Sky Plan software. The accuracy of each segmentation method was evaluated using the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and 95 % Hausdorff distance (HD95). Additionally, the clinical applicability of the 3D models was qualitatively evaluated using questionnaires focused on surface consistency, structural completeness, surface smoothness and noise, accuracy of anatomical features, and overall suitability for virtual surgical planning. Statistical analysis was performed using non-parametric tests. Results: For segmentation accuracy, threshold segmentation and 3D hole repairing achieved significantly higher DSC and HD95 compared with other algorithms. AI segmentation in Mimics Viewer achieved a DSC of 0.90 ± 0.03 and an HD95 of 0.72 ± 0.50 mm, less than 1 mm.With regard to the qualitative assessment of clinical applicability, the score for Mimics Viewer was 3 (IQR: 3–4; p < 0.001), which outperformed the other algorithms for accuracy of anatomical features. Blue Sky Plan had the lowest median DSC (0.78 ± 0.12) and highest HD95 (2.02 ± 0.80 mm). Conclusion: 3D hole repairing using 3-matic gave the best performance in terms of both accuracy and quality assessment for the anterior surface of the maxilla. AI-driven segmentation using Mimics Viewer, designed specifically for craniomaxillofacial surgery, provides optimal performance and could be a valuable tool in VSP.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherElsevier-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery-
dc.subject3D modeling-
dc.subjectArtificial intelligence-
dc.subjectCBCT segmentation-
dc.subjectComputer-assisted surgery-
dc.subjectMaxilla-
dc.subjectPatient-specific surgical plates-
dc.subjectThin bone-
dc.subjectVirtual surgical planning-
dc.titleAI-driven CBCT segmentation and 3D modeling of the anterior surface of maxilla for computer-assisted surgery: a comparison of multiple algorithms-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jcms.2025.07.007-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-105011267186-
dc.identifier.eissn1878-4119-
dc.identifier.issnl1010-5182-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats