Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 3, 2025
Digital Hybrid Model Preparation for Virtual Planning of Reconstructive Dentoalveolar Surgical Procedures
Published on: August 5, 2021
Risk assessment of inferior alveolar nerve injury after wisdom tooth removal using 3D AI-driven models: A
Fernando Fortes Picoli1, Rocharles Cavalcante Fontenele2, Frederic Van der Cruyssen3
1OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Leuven and Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, 3000, Leuven, Belgium; School of Dentistry, Federal University of Goiás, Goiânia, GO, Brazil.
Objective:
To compare a three-dimensional (3D) artificial intelligence (AI)- driven model with panoramic radiography (PANO) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in assessing the risk of inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) injury after mandibular wisdom tooth (M3M) removal through a within-patient controlled trial.
Methods:
From a database of 6,010 patients undergoing M3M surgery, 25 patients met the inclusion criteria of bilateral M3M removal with postoperative unilateral IAN injury. In this within-patient controlled trial, preoperative PANO and CBCT images were available, while 3D-AI models of the mandibular canal and teeth were generated from the CBCT images using the Virtual Patient Creator AI platform (Relu BV, Leuven, Belgium). Five examiners, who were blinded to surgical outcomes, assessed the imaging modalities and assigned scores indicating the risk level of IAN injury (high, medium, or low risk). Sensitivity, specificity, and area under receiver operating curve (AUC) for IAN risk assessment were calculated for each imaging modality.
Results:
For IAN injury risk assessment after M3M removal, sensitivity was 0.87 for 3D-AI, 0.89 for CBCT versus 0.73 for PANO. Furthermore, the AUC and specificity values were 0.63 and 0.39 for 3D-AI, 0.58 and 0.28 for CBCT, and 0.57 and 0.41 for PANO, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) among the imaging modalities for any diagnostic parameters.
Conclusion:
This within-patient controlled trial study revealed that risk assessment for IAN injury after M3M removal was rather similar for 3D-AI, PANO, and CBCT, with a sensitivity for injury prediction reaching up to 0.87 for 3D-AI and 0.89 for CBCT.
Clinical Significance:
This within-patient trial is pioneering in exploring the application of 3D AI-driven models for assessing IAN injury risk after M3M removal. The present results indicate that AI-powered 3D models based on CBCT might facilitate IAN risk assessment of M3M removal.
