Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the trueness of artificial intelligence (AI)-based, manual, and global segmentation protocols by superimposing the resulting segmented 3D models onto reference gold standard surface scan models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve dry human mandibles were used. A cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanner was used to scan the mandibles, and the acquired digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) files were segmented using three protocols: global thresholding, manual, and AI-based segmentation (Diagnocat; Diagnocat, San Francisco, CA). The segmented files were exported as study 3D models. A structured light surface scanner (GoSCAN Spark; Creaform 3D, Levis, Canada) was used to scan all mandibles, and the resulting reference 3D models were exported. The study 3D models were compared with the respective reference 3D models by using a mesh comparison software (Geomagic Design X; 3D Systems Inc, Rock Hill, SC). Root mean square (RMS) error values were recorded to measure the magnitude of deviation (trueness), and color maps were obtained to visualize the differences. Comparisons of the trueness of three segmentation methods for differences in RMS were made using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests in the software program. RESULTS: AI-based segmentations had significantly higher RMS values than manual segmentations for the entire mandible (p < 0.001), alveolar process (p < 0.001), and body of the mandible (p < 0.001). AI-based segmentations had significantly lower RMS values than manual segmentations for the condyles (p = 0.018) and ramus (p = 0.013). No significant differences were found between the AI-based and manual segmentations for the coronoid process (p = 0.275), symphysis (p = 0.346), and angle of the mandible (p = 0.344). Global thresholding had significantly higher RMS values than manual segmentations for the alveolus (p < 0.001), angle of the mandible (p < 0.001), body of the mandible (p < 0.001), condyles (p < 0.001), coronoid (p = 0.002), entire mandible (p < 0.001), ramus (p < 0.001), and symphysis (p < 0.001). Global thresholding had significantly higher RMS values than AI-based segmentation for the alveolar process (p = 0.002), angle of the mandible (p < 0.001), body of the mandible (p < 0.001), condyles (p < 0.001), coronoid (p = 0.017), mandible (p < 0.001), ramus (p < 0.001), and symphysis (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: AI-based segmentations produced lower RMS values, indicating truer 3D models, compared to global thresholding, and showed no significant differences in some areas compared to manual segmentation. Thus, AI-based segmentation offers a level of segmentation trueness acceptable for use as an alternative to manual or global thresholding segmentation protocols.