» Articles » PMID: 39557735

A Comparison of Deep Learning Vs. Dental Implantologists in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography-Based Bone Quality Classification

Overview
Publisher Springer Nature
Specialty Radiology
Date 2024 Nov 18
PMID 39557735
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Bone quality assessment is crucial for pre-surgical implant planning, influencing both implant design and drilling protocol selection. The Lekholm and Zarb (L&Z) classification, which categorizes bone quality into four types based on cortical bone width and trabecular bone density using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) data, lacks quantitative guidelines, leading to subjective interpretations. This study aimed to compare the performance of deep learning (DL)-based approaches against human examiners in assessing bone quality, according to the L&Z classification, using CBCT images. A dataset of 1100 CBCT cross-sectional slices was classified into four bone types by two oral and maxillofacial radiologists. Five pre-trained DL models were trained on 1000 images using MATLAB, with 100 images reserved for testing. Inception-ResNet-v2 achieved the highest accuracy (86.00%) with a learning rate of 0.001. The performance of Inception-ResNet-v2 was then compared to that of 23 residency students and two experienced implantologists. The DL model outperformed human assessors across all parameters, demonstrating excellent precision and recall, with F1-scores exceeding 75%. Notably, residency students and one implantologist struggled to distinguish bone type 2, with low recall rates (48.15% and 40.74%, respectively). In conclusion, the Inception-ResNet-v2 DL model demonstrated superior performance compared to novice implantologists, suggesting its potential as an supplementary tool for cross-sectional bone quality assessment.

References
1.
Howe M, Keys W, Richards D . Long-term (10-year) dental implant survival: A systematic review and sensitivity meta-analysis. J Dent. 2019; 84:9-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.03.008. View

2.
Losenicka J, Gajdos O, Kamensky V . Cost-utility analysis of an implant treatment in dentistry. BMC Oral Health. 2021; 21(1):433. PMC: 8422643. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01790-y. View

3.
Mittal Y, Jindal G, Garg S . Bone manipulation procedures in dental implants. Indian J Dent. 2016; 7(2):86-94. PMC: 4934094. DOI: 10.4103/0975-962X.184650. View

4.
Al-Ekrish A, Widmann G, Alfadda S . Revised, Computed Tomography-Based Lekholm and Zarb Jawbone Quality Classification. Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31(4):342-345. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.5714. View

5.
Shemtov-Yona K . Quantitative assessment of the jawbone quality classification: A meta-analysis study. PLoS One. 2021; 16(6):e0253283. PMC: 8208540. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253283. View