Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2024 Jan 29;29(1):84.
doi: 10.1186/s40001-024-01681-2.

Automated localization of mandibular landmarks in the construction of mandibular median sagittal plane

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Automated localization of mandibular landmarks in the construction of mandibular median sagittal plane

Yali Wang et al. Eur J Med Res. .

Abstract

Objective: To use deep learning to segment the mandible and identify three-dimensional (3D) anatomical landmarks from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images, the planes constructed from the mandibular midline landmarks were compared and analyzed to find the best mandibular midsagittal plane (MMSP).

Methods: A total of 400 participants were randomly divided into a training group (n = 360) and a validation group (n = 40). Normal individuals were used as the test group (n = 50). The PointRend deep learning mechanism segmented the mandible from CBCT images and accurately identified 27 anatomic landmarks via PoseNet. 3D coordinates of 5 central landmarks and 2 pairs of side landmarks were obtained for the test group. Every 35 combinations of 3 midline landmarks were screened using the template mapping technique. The asymmetry index (AI) was calculated for each of the 35 mirror planes. The template mapping technique plane was used as the reference plane; the top four planes with the smallest AIs were compared through distance, volume difference, and similarity index to find the plane with the fewest errors.

Results: The mandible was segmented automatically in 10 ± 1.5 s with a 0.98 Dice similarity coefficient. The mean landmark localization error for the 27 landmarks was 1.04 ± 0.28 mm. MMSP should use the plane made by B (supramentale), Gn (gnathion), and F (mandibular foramen). The average AI grade was 1.6 (min-max: 0.59-3.61). There was no significant difference in distance or volume (P > 0.05); however, the similarity index was significantly different (P < 0.01).

Conclusion: Deep learning can automatically segment the mandible, identify anatomic landmarks, and address medicinal demands in people without mandibular deformities. The most accurate MMSP was the B-Gn-F plane.

Keywords: 3D imaging; Deep learning; Mandible segmentation; Mandibular median sagittal plane.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig.1
Fig.1
Automatic construction of MMSP by anatomical landmarks. a PointRend deep learning training; b PoseNet deep learning training; c mandible model; d template mapping technique; e MMSP was build
Fig.2
Fig.2
Anatomical landmarks of the mandible. A. right view; B. front view ① “supramentale” ② “pogonion” ③ “gnathion” ④ “menton” ⑤ “genial tubercle” ⑥ “fossa of mandibular foramen” ⑦ “mental foramen” ⑧ “gonion” ⑨ “condylion superius” ⑩ “condylion medialis” ⑪ “condylion lateralis” ⑫ “coronoid superius” ⑬ “sigmoid notch” ⑭ “ramus point” ⑮ “Jlat” ⑯ “Jmed”
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Mandibular asymmetry with the sagittal plane as the mirror plane; red indicates asymmetry greater than 4 mm, and dark blue indicates no asymmetry. a B-Gn-F: AI = 0.8; b B-Me-F: AI = 0.95; c B-Pog-F: AI = 1.34; d B-G-F:AI = 2.19
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Green: left mandible A, yellow: right mandible B; a distance to MMSP (d1-d2); b difference in mandibular volume of two sides (A, B); c MMSP is a mirrored plane, superimposed on the left and right sides; d blue is the nonoverlapping area

References

    1. Fang JJ, Tu YH, Wong TY, Liu JK, Zhang YX, Leong IF, et al. Evaluation of mandibular contour in patients with significant facial asymmetry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;45(7):922–931. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2016.02.008. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kwon SM, Hwang JJ, Jung YH, Cho BH, Lee KJ, Hwang CJ, et al. Similarity index for intuitive assessment of three-dimensional facial asymmetry. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):10959. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-47477-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. AlHadidi A, Cevidanes LH, Mol A, Ludlow J, Styner M. Comparison of two methods for quantitative assessment of mandibular asymmetry using cone beam computed tomography image volumes. Dentomaxillofac Radiol&nbsp; 2011;40(6):351–357. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/13993523. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fan Y, Zhang Y, Chen G, He W, Song G, Matthews H, et al. Automated assessment of mandibular shape asymmetry in 3-dimensions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2022;161(5):698–707. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2021.07.014. - DOI - PubMed
    1. You KH, Lee KJ, Lee SH, Baik HS. Three-dimensional computed tomography analysis of mandibular morphology in patients with facial asymmetry and mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138(5):540.e1–540.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.04.025. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources