Automated gingival segmentation using AI achieves high accuracy and efficiency, suggesting potential for clinical workflows.
To develop and validate an artificial intelligence (AI) model for automated gingival segmentation on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) using the intraoral scan as a reference. A total of 101 CBCT scans (180 arches) were divided into training (50 scans/80 arches), validation (15/40), and testing (36/60) sets. Manual segmentation (MS) served as the ground truth based on intraoral scan. AI-driven segmentations (AS) were refined by an expert (R-AS) to correct oversegmentation and undersegmentation and then compared to AS to assess model performance. A subset of the testing dataset (30 arches, 15 maxilla/15 mandible) was used to compare AS and MS. Accuracy was evaluated using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), median surface deviation (MSD), and root mean square deviation (RMS). MS, AS, and R-AS times were recorded and compared. The AI model achieved high accuracy with DSC of 93% (maxilla) and 91% (mandible). MSD values were 0.07±0.05 mm (maxilla) and 0.04±0.04 mm (mandible). RMS values were 0.40±0.29 and 0.24±0.11 mm, respectively. Maxillary segmentation was significantly more accurate across all metrics (p<0.01). AS performed similarly to MS for maxillary and mandibular gingival segmentation, except for maxillary MSD, where MS outperformed AS (0.09±0.04 vs. 0.02±0.03 mm; p<0.05). AS (5.9±1 s) and R-AS (1096±339 s) were significantly faster than MS by 725 and 4 times, respectively. The AI model demonstrated high accuracy and time efficiency in overall gingival segmentation, with expert refinement supporting clinical optimization of the digital workflow.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Papasratorn et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: