Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40420051›Full record

SynthesisBMC oral health2025

Evolution of deep learning tooth segmentation from CT/CBCT images: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wai Ying Kot, Sum Yin Au Yeung, Yin Yan Leung, Pui Hang Leung, Wei-Fa Yang

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Transformer-based models in dentistry: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Wai Ying KotFaculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Sum Yin Au YeungFaculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Yin Yan LeungFaculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Pui Hang LeungFaculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Wei-Fa YangFaculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. teddyrun@hku.hk.

Funding

Food and Health Bureau 11221966
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDeep learning has been utilized to segment teeth from computed tomography (CT) or cone-beam CT (CBCT). However, the performance of deep learning is unknown due to multiple models and diverse evaluation metrics. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the evolution and performance of deep learning in tooth segmentation.

methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, arXiv.org, and ACM for studies investigating deep learning in human tooth segmentation from CT/CBCT. Included studies were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Study (QUADAS-2) tool. Data were extracted for meta-analyses by random-effects models.

resultsA total of 30 studies were included in the systematic review, and 28 of them were included for meta-analyses. Various deep learning algorithms were categorized according to the backbone network, encompassing single-stage convolutional models, convolutional models with U-Net architecture, Transformer models, convolutional models with attention mechanisms, and combinations of multiple models. Convolutional models with U-Net architecture were the most commonly used deep learning algorithms. The integration of attention mechanism within convolutional models has become a new topic. 29 evaluation metrics were identified, with Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) being the most popular. The pooled results were 0.93 [0.93, 0.93] for DSC, 0.86 [0.85, 0.87] for Intersection over Union (IoU), 0.22 [0.19, 0.24] for Average Symmetric Surface Distance (ASSD), 0.92 [0.90, 0.94] for sensitivity, 0.71 [0.26, 1.17] for 95% Hausdorff distance, and 0.96 [0.93, 0.98] for precision. No significant difference was observed in the segmentation of single-rooted or multi-rooted teeth. No obvious correlation between sample size and segmentation performance was observed.

conclusionsMultiple deep learning algorithms have been successfully applied to tooth segmentation from CT/CBCT and their evolution has been well summarized and categorized according to their backbone structures. In future, studies are needed with standardized protocols and open labelled datasets.

Indexed as

Cone-Beam Computed TomographyDeep LearningTomography, X-Ray ComputedToothHumansArtificial intelligenceCBCTConvolutional neural networksDeep learningTooth segmentationTransformer

Identifiers

PMID40420051
PMCPMC12107724

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.