ArticleJournal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists2026
Performance assessment of five artificial intelligence-based algorithms for automated tooth segmentation and labeling on intraoral scans.
Article in Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of five AI algorithms for tooth segmentation and labeling on intraoral scans, as their performance remains unclear. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 100 intraoral scans in the STL file format were classified into two main groups: complete dentition (C) and partial dentition (P, fewer than 12 teeth). Each group was further divided by arch into four subgroups (n = 25 each): complete maxillary (Mx-C), complete mandibular (Md-C), partial maxillary (Mx-P), and partial mandibular (Md-P). The algorithms tested were the Tooth Group Network (Team CGIP), Dentbird Studio (Dentbird), Medit Ortho Simulation (Medit), NemoSmile 3D (Nemotec), and MovumStudio (MovumTech). Manual segmentations by an expert operator served as the ground truth. Performance was assessed using Python and five metrics, with Intersection over Union (IOU) as the primary indicator. Statistical analysis included permutation tests with the Bonferroni-Holm correction (α = 0.05).
resultsSignificant differences were observed between groups and algorithms (P < 0.05). IOU scores ranged from 0.72 to 0.92 in complete dentition and showed greater variability in partial dentition (0-0.928). The Tooth Group Network and MovumStudio consistently outperformed the others, with MovumStudio achieving the highest performance across all metrics and groups. Its performance matched that of a human expert when compared against a subset of the data.
conclusionsTooth segmentation and labeling performance vary depending on dentition completeness and algorithm choice. MovumStudio demonstrated the most robust and consistent results, comparable to expert human annotation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.