Back

Accuracy And Generalizability of an Open-Source Deep Learning Model For Facial Bone Segmentation on CT and CBCT Scans

Gkantidis, N.; Ghamri, M.; DOT, G.

2025-12-29 dentistry and oral medicine
10.64898/2025.12.28.25343101 medRxiv
Show abstract

AimTo evaluate the accuracy and generalizability of DentalSegmentator, an open-source deep learning tool, for automated segmentation of skeletal facial surfaces from computed tomography (CT) scans acquired under different imaging conditions. Materials and MethodsTen human skulls were scanned using a CT scanner and three cone beam CT (CBCT) protocols (including an ultra-low-dose protocol) on two CBCT devices. High-accuracy reference surface models were acquired using an optical scanner. CBCT an CT scans were segmented automatically using DentalSegmentator. Three facial regions (forehead, zygomatic process, maxillary process) were defined on each model for quantitative assessment. Accuracy was measured as the mean absolute distance (MAD) and the standard deviation of absolute distances (SDAD) between segmented and reference models after best-fit superimposition. ResultsRepeated segmentations were identical, confirming perfect reproducibility. Across all acquisition settings and regions, DentalSegmentator produced highly accurate skeletal surface models, with an overall MAD of 0.088 mm (IQR 0.073) and SDAD of 0.061 mm (IQR 0.028). Significant but small differences were detected between imaging systems (MAD: p < 0.001; SDAD: p = 0.003), with CT scans showing slightly reduced trueness compared with CBCT images. ConclusionThe open-source DentalSegmentator tool produced accurate skeletal facial surface segmentations across diverse CT and CBCT settings, demonstrating excellent generalizability, including under low-radiation conditions. Minor differences in trueness between imaging systems were small and unlikely to impact clinical or research use. Clinical SignificanceDeep learning offers a robust foundation for automated 3D craniofacial surface extraction, supporting broader adoption of AI-driven workflows in both clinical and research contexts.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
40.2%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 17%
6.4%
3
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.7%
50% of probability mass above
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 33%
4.4%
5
Physics in Medicine & Biology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.1%
6
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.9%
7
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 32%
2.7%
8
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
9
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.8%
10
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
11
Journal of Dental Research
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
12
Bone
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
13
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
14
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
15
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.4%
16
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
17
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
18
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
19
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
20
Expert Systems with Applications
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
21
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
22
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
23
Infection
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
24
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
25
Aperture Neuro
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%