Back

Deep Learning based Quantification of Root Exposure in Lower Anterior Teeth using Intraoral camera image

Choi, H.; Choi, Y.-H.; Park, E. Y.; Kang, S.; Kim, E.-K.

2026-07-04 dentistry and oral medicine
10.64898/2026.07.02.26357104 medRxiv
Show abstract

This study compared and evaluated two widely used deep learning-based artificial intelligence (AI) models, U-Net++ and YOLOv11, for quantifying tooth and root exposure on intraoral camera images of the mandibular anterior lingual region. Intraoral images of the mandibular anterior lingual region were collected from 291 patients (mean age, 52.8 years) at a university hospital dental clinic with institutional review board approval (YUMC IRB 2021-07-019-002). A total of 266 eligible images (mean, 5.50 teeth per image; 3.70 teeth with root exposure) were annotated. YOLOv11 and U-Net++ were fine-tuned using five-fold cross-validation with data augmentation. Model performance was evaluated on a held-out test set of 40 images using Dice coefficient, Intersection over Union (IoU), accuracy, mean Average Precision at an IoU threshold of 0.5 (mAP50), Lins concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Confidence intervals were estimated using 10,000 bootstrap iterations. For tooth segmentation, U-Net++ demonstrated superior performance, with high accuracy (0.981), Dice coefficient (0.971), and IoU (0.944). In contrast, for root segmentation, YOLOv11 outperformed U-Net++, achieving higher Dice (0.860 vs. 0.746) and IoU (0.762 vs. 0.631). Notably, YOLOv11 showed stronger agreement with the ground truth for quantifying the exposed root ratio (ERR) (CCC, 0.973; ICC, 0.975). These findings suggest that accurate detection of root exposure is important for assessing periodontal tissue loss and that YOLOv11 is a promising model for root exposure quantification in intraoral images. YOLOv11-based quantification of root exposure may serve as a useful adjunctive AI tool for screening and monitoring periodontal conditions and may support individualized treatment planning.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 2%
13.1%
2
European Radiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.5%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 20%
8.3%
4
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 12%
8.3%
5
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
7.7%
6
Journal of Dental Research
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.8%
50% of probability mass above
7
BioMed Research International
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.1%
8
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics
172 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.9%
9
Frontiers in Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.6%
10
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
11
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
12
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
13
Cureus
68 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
14
IEEE Access
35 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.8%
15
Sensors
43 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.6%
16
Biomolecules
100 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
17
Frontiers in Immunology
638 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.2%
18
Children
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
19
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.2%
20
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
21
Journal of Neural Engineering
221 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
22
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
23
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
24
Applied Sciences
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
25
Advanced Science
286 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.5%
26
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 35%
0.5%
27
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%