| Literature DB >> 35706023 |
Juncheng Guo1, Yuyan Wu1, Lizhi Chen1, Shangbin Long1, Daqi Chen1, Haibing Ouyang1, Chunliang Zhang1, Yadong Tang2, Wenlong Wang3.
Abstract
Despite numerous clinical trials and pre-clinical developments, the diagnosis of cracked tooth, especially in the early stages, remains a challenge. Cracked tooth syndrome is often accompanied by dramatic painful responses from occlusion and temperature stimulation, which has become one of the leading causes for tooth loss in adults. Current clinical diagnostical approaches for cracked tooth have been widely investigated based on X-rays, optical light, ultrasound wave, etc. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) development have unlocked the possibility of detecting the crack in a more intellectual and automotive way. This may lead to the possibility of further enhancement of the diagnostic accuracy for cracked tooth disease. In this review, various medical imaging technologies for diagnosing cracked tooth are overviewed. In particular, the imaging modality, effect and the advantages of each diagnostic technique are discussed. What's more, AI-based crack detection and classification methods, especially the convolutional neural network (CNN)-based algorithms, including image classification (AlexNet), object detection (YOLO, Faster-RCNN), semantic segmentation (U-Net, Segnet) are comprehensively reviewed. Finally, the future perspectives and challenges in the diagnosis of the cracked tooth are lighted.Entities:
Keywords: Artificial intelligence; Image processing; Review of oral diagnosis; Survey of crack detection
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35706023 PMCID: PMC9202175 DOI: 10.1186/s12938-022-01008-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Eng Online ISSN: 1475-925X Impact factor: 3.903
Fig. 1Illustrations of the methods for the diagnosis of cracked tooth
Fig. 2Illustration of the measurement of oral X-ray radiograph
Fig. 3Illustration of the measurement of CBCT
Comparative study between CBCT and PR (periapical radiography)
| Literature | Method | Subjects | Results (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACC | SEN | SPE | PPV | NPV | |||
| [ | CBCT | Dogs’ anterior maxillae | 82 | 90 | 86 | ||
| PR | 87 | 95 | 92 | ||||
| [ | CBCT | Human mandibular premolar and molar teeth | 98 | 100 | 99 | 99 | |
| PR | 65 | 100 | 100 | 71 | |||
| [ | CBCT | Human teeth with gutta-percha | 68.8 | 36.7 | 27.7 | 75 | |
| PR | 19.2 | 97.5 | 61.2 | 78 | |||
| [ | CBCT | Human teeth (40 premolars and 40 molars) | 86 | 77.5 | 91.3 | ||
| PR | 66 | 37.5 | 95 | ||||
| [ | CBCT | Human teeth | 70 | 100 | 100 | 64 | |
| PR | 23 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |||
| [ | CBCT | 135 human teeth (49were endodontically treated) | 91.9 | 89.5 | 97.5 | 98.8 | 79.6 |
| PR | 48.1 | 26.3 | 100 | 100 | 36.4 | ||
PPV: Positive Predictive Value; NPV: Negative Predictive Value; SEN: Sensitivity; SPE: Specificity; ACC: Accuracy
Fig. 4Illustration of the measurement of OCT
Fig. 5Comparison study of four crack detection methods: (a–c) images from trans-illumination detection; (d–f) images from intraoral radiography; (g–i) images from CBCT; (j–l) images from OCT. The red line indicates the cross section of CBCT and the OCT scan line. Red and blue arrows indicate crack lines. The blue circle indicates a false-positive crack in trans-illumination detection. The image resource was cited from reference [53].
Copyright © 2017. Korean Academy of Periodontology publishing
Summary of imaging diagnostic techniques for cracked tooth
| Method | Voxel size | Width can be detected | Radiation | Advantage | Disadvantage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oral X-rays | Lower | Wide range of applications, cheap | Low efficiency, anatomic superimposition, distortion | ||
| CT | High | Fast, Three-dimensional imaging | Expensive, presence of artifacts, low spatial resolution | ||
| CBCT | 75–400 μm [ 125–2000 μm [ 80 μm [ 250 μm [ | 50–300 μm [ | Low | Easily operate, safe, cheap, accurate, High spatial resolution | Difficult to obtain good soft tissue detail, presence of artifacts |
| Micro-CT | 5–20 μm [ 13.67 μm [ | 5–20 μm [ | Extremely high | High spatial resolution, fast, and precise | Cannot be applied in vivo |
| Ultrasound | 4–35.5 μm (VibroIR) [ | No | Non-invasive, painless, accurate, visualization of hard and soft tissue, and good acceptance by patients | Difficult to operate | |
| OCT | 10 μm [ | No | High resolution, non-invasive, cheap, accurate, real-time imaging, safe | Noise in the image | |
| MRI | Around 20 µm [ | No | Non-invasive, Contrast resolution, | Noisy, expensive, easily distorted by metal |
Fig. 6Block diagram to illustrate the framework of the methods for detection of cracked tooth
Summary of convolutional neural network for crack segmentation
| Methods | Models | Reference | Size of images | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | F1 (%) | Size of data sets |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image classification | DCNN | [ | 256 × 256 | 99.09 | 60,000 | ||
| [ | 256 × 256 | 98 | 40,000 | ||||
| Object detection | YOLO | [ | 448 × 448 | 83.54 | 79.93 | 2000 | |
| YOLO-v2 | [ | 227 × 227 | 89 | 990 | |||
| [ | 416 × 416 | 88.51 | 87.1 | 87.8 | 9053 | ||
| YOLO-v3 | [ | 416 × 416 | 89.16 | 91.16 | 1500 | ||
| [ | 480 × 600 | 88 | 4000 | ||||
| Faster R-CNN | [ | 1865 × 2000 | 78.53 | 85.56 | 3000 | ||
| [ | 96.3 | 5966 | |||||
| [ | 500 × 375 | 90.2 | 2366 | ||||
| Semantic segmentation | FCN (VGG19) | [ | 224 × 224 | 81.7 | 78.97 | 79.95 | > 800 |
| FCN (VGG16) | [ | 227 × 227 | 90 | 89.3 | |||
| U-Net | [ | 572 × 572 | 92.46 | 82.82 | 87.38 | 118 (CrackForest) | |
| [ | 512 × 512 | 92.12 | 95.7 | 93.88 | 118 (CrackForest) | ||
| [ | 48 × 48 | 90 | 91 | 90 | 57 | ||
| [ | 320 × 320 | 94.94 | 93.55 | 96.37 | 118 (CrackForest) | ||
| [ | 256 × 256 | 97.02 | 94.32 | 95.55 | 118 (CrackForest) | ||
| [ | 480 × 320 | 91.45 | 88.67 | 90.04 | 1200 | ||
| [ | 97.31 | 94.28 | 95.75 | 118 (CrackForest) | |||
| CrackU-net | [ | 1024 × 1024 | 98.56 | 97.98 | 98.42 | 3000 | |
| SegNet | [ | 360 × 480 | 90.92 | 97.47 | 79.16 | 1021 | |
| [ | 608 × 608 | 80.31 | 80.45 | 504 | |||
| CrackSeg | [ | 256 × 256 | 98 | 97.85 | 97.92 | 8198 | |
| SDDNet | [ | 513 × 513 | 87.4 | 87 | 87.2 | 537 | |
| FPCNet | [ | 288 × 288 | 97.48 | 96.39 | 96.93 | 118 (CrackForest) |
Fig. 7Representative frameworks of convolutional neural network for crack detection and segmentation
Fig. 8Typical results of object detection (YOLO) [120] and semantic segmentation (U-Net) [136] under different situations. The anchor boxes in the figure (a–d) represent the area of crack. a Testing results of normal crack in the smooth pavement. b Testing results of normal crack in the rough ground. c Tiny crack in the smooth pavement. d Normal crack in the stained ground. For semantic segmentation methods, e, g represent the original images under shadow and rough pavement, respectively. f, h Results of semantic segmentation of the crack.
Copyright © Elsevier publishing (2019)