Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 26, 2025
Four-Dimensional CT Analysis Using Sequential 3D-3D Registration
Published on: November 23, 2019
[Comparative evaluation of the accuracy of 3D TMJ analysis performed by different methods of processing computed
A N Ryakhovsky1, S A Ryakhovsky2
1Central Research Institute of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery, Moscow, Russia.
Objective:
The aim of this study. Comparison of the accuracy of segmentation of TMJ elements in different ways and assessment of the suitability of the data obtained for the diagnosis of TMJ dysfunction.
Materials And Methods:
To study the segmentation of the bone elements of the TMJ (articular fossa, head of the LF), 60 computed tomograms of the maxillofacial region of patients were randomly selected in various ways (archival material). In group 1, the results of CT processing by AI diagnostics algorithms (Russia) were collected; in group 2, the results of CT processing based on the semi-automatic segmentation method in the Avantis3D program. The results of CT processing by Avantis3D AI algorithms (Russia) with different probability modes - 0.4 and 0.9, respectively, were selected for the third and fourth groups. Visually, the coincidence of the contours of the LF heads and articular pits isolated using different methods with their contours on all possible sections of the original CT itself was evaluated. The time spent on TMJ segmentation according to CT data was determined and compared using the methods described above.
Results:
Of the 240 objects, only 7.5% of the cases showed a slight discrepancy between the contours of the original CT in group b1, which was the lowest of all. A slight discrepancy in the TMJ contours to be corrected is characteristic of the semi-automatic method of segmentation by optical density was detected in 50.4% (group 2). The largest percentage of significant errors not subject to correction was noted in the first group, which made it impossible to perform a full 3D analysis of the TMJ, and the smallest in the second and fourth. The magnitude of the error in determining the width of the articular gap in different groups is comparable to the size of one voxel per CT. When segmentation is carried out using AI, the difference between segmented objects is close to zero values. The average time spent on TMJ segmentation in group 1 was 10.2±1.23 seconds, in group 2 - 12.6±1.87 seconds, in groups 3 and 4 - 0.46±0.12 seconds and 0.46±0.13 seconds, respectively.
Conclusion:
The developed automated method for segmenting TMJ elements using AI is obviously more suitable for practical work, since it requires minimal time, and is almost as accurate as other methods under consideration.
