Mandibular bone segmentation from CT scans: Quantitative and qualitative comparison among software

IF 4.6 1区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Dental Materials Pub Date : 2024-06-05 DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2024.05.022
{"title":"Mandibular bone segmentation from CT scans: Quantitative and qualitative comparison among software","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.dental.2024.05.022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Nowadays, a wide variety of software for 3D reconstruction from CT scans is available; they differ for costs, capabilities, a priori knowledge, and, it is not trivial to identify the most suitable one for specific purposes. The article is aimed to provide some more information, having set up various metrics for the evaluation of different software’s performance.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Metrics include software usability, segmentation quality, geometric accuracy, mesh properties and Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC). Five different software have been considered (Mimics, D2P, Blue Sky Plan, Relu, and 3D Slicer) and tested on four cases; the mandibular bone was used as a benchmark.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Relu software, being based on AI, was able to solve some very intricate geometry and proved to have a very good usability. On the other side, the time required for segmentation was significantly higher than other software (reaching over twice the time required by Mimics). Geometric distances between nodes position calculated by different software usually kept below 2.5 mm, reaching 3.1 mm in some very critical area; 75th percentile q<sub>75</sub> is generally less than 0.5 mm, with a maximum of 1.11 mm. Dealing with consistency among software, the maximum DSC value was observed between Mimics and Slicer, D2P and Mimics, and D2P and Slicer, reaching 0.96.</p></div><div><h3>Significance</h3><p>This work has demonstrated how mandible segmentation performance among software was generally very good. Nonetheless, differences in geometric accuracy, usability, costs and times required can be significant so that information here provided can be useful to perform an informed choice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":298,"journal":{"name":"Dental Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0109564124001222/pdfft?md5=b9635d1906e2c1599524c14baa443ac4&pid=1-s2.0-S0109564124001222-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dental Materials","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0109564124001222","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Nowadays, a wide variety of software for 3D reconstruction from CT scans is available; they differ for costs, capabilities, a priori knowledge, and, it is not trivial to identify the most suitable one for specific purposes. The article is aimed to provide some more information, having set up various metrics for the evaluation of different software’s performance.

Methods

Metrics include software usability, segmentation quality, geometric accuracy, mesh properties and Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC). Five different software have been considered (Mimics, D2P, Blue Sky Plan, Relu, and 3D Slicer) and tested on four cases; the mandibular bone was used as a benchmark.

Results

Relu software, being based on AI, was able to solve some very intricate geometry and proved to have a very good usability. On the other side, the time required for segmentation was significantly higher than other software (reaching over twice the time required by Mimics). Geometric distances between nodes position calculated by different software usually kept below 2.5 mm, reaching 3.1 mm in some very critical area; 75th percentile q75 is generally less than 0.5 mm, with a maximum of 1.11 mm. Dealing with consistency among software, the maximum DSC value was observed between Mimics and Slicer, D2P and Mimics, and D2P and Slicer, reaching 0.96.

Significance

This work has demonstrated how mandible segmentation performance among software was generally very good. Nonetheless, differences in geometric accuracy, usability, costs and times required can be significant so that information here provided can be useful to perform an informed choice.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从 CT 扫描中分割下颌骨:不同软件的定量和定性比较
目的:如今,用于 CT 扫描三维重建的软件种类繁多;它们在成本、功能、先验知识等方面各不相同,要为特定目的找出最合适的软件并非易事。本文旨在提供更多信息,并为评估不同软件的性能设定了各种指标:衡量标准包括软件可用性、分割质量、几何精度、网格属性和骰子相似系数(DSC)。考虑了五种不同的软件(Mimics、D2P、Blue Sky Plan、Relu 和 3D Slicer),并在四个病例上进行了测试;下颌骨被用作基准:结果:Relu 软件以人工智能为基础,能够解决一些非常复杂的几何问题,并具有很好的可用性。另一方面,分割所需的时间明显高于其他软件(达到 Mimics 所需时间的两倍以上)。不同软件计算出的节点位置之间的几何距离通常保持在 2.5 毫米以下,在一些非常关键的区域达到 3.1 毫米;第 75 百分位数 q75 通常小于 0.5 毫米,最大为 1.11 毫米。在软件之间的一致性方面,Mimics 和 Slicer、D2P 和 Mimics 以及 D2P 和 Slicer 之间的 DSC 值最大,达到 0.96:这项研究表明,各软件的下颌骨分割性能普遍非常出色。然而,不同软件在几何精度、可用性、成本和所需时间方面的差异可能很大,因此本研究提供的信息有助于做出明智的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Dental Materials
Dental Materials 工程技术-材料科学:生物材料
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
290
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: Dental Materials publishes original research, review articles, and short communications. Academy of Dental Materials members click here to register for free access to Dental Materials online. The principal aim of Dental Materials is to promote rapid communication of scientific information between academia, industry, and the dental practitioner. Original Manuscripts on clinical and laboratory research of basic and applied character which focus on the properties or performance of dental materials or the reaction of host tissues to materials are given priority publication. Other acceptable topics include application technology in clinical dentistry and dental laboratory technology. Comprehensive reviews and editorial commentaries on pertinent subjects will be considered.
期刊最新文献
Biaxial flexural strength of nanoglass and multiwalled carbon nanotubes reinforced 3D-printed denture base resins and their shear bond strength to 3D-printed and acrylic denture teeth. Composition control of additively manufactured color-graded temporary veneer. Conventionally and digitally fabricated removable complete dentures: manufacturing accuracy, fracture resistance and repairability. Load-bearing capacity, internal accuracy and time-efficiency of heat-pressed, milled and 3D-printed lithium disilicate ultra-thin occlusal veneers. Monomer elution and shrinkage stress analysis of addition-fragmentation chain-transfer-modified resin composites in relation to the curing protocol.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1