Table 5 Comparison of MD width and CCH among the three methods by tooth group.

From: Accuracy and efficiency of automatic tooth segmentation in digital dental models using deep learning

Variable

MD width (mm)

CCH (mm)

LS

DS

AS

pa value

Post-hoc test

LS

DS

AS

pa value

Post-hoc test

Upper

Incisal

−0.26 (−0.29, −0.23)

0.07 (0.03, 0.11)

0.00 (−0.05, 0.05)

 < 0.001

DS > AS > LS

−0.01 (−0.02, 0.00)

−0.21 (−0.26, −0.16)

−0.11 (−0.15, −0.07)

 < 0.001

LS > AS, DS

Canine

−0.21 (−0.26, −0.17)

−0.06 (−0.10, −0.01)

−0.15 (−0.21, −0.09)

 < 0.001

DS, AS > LS

−0.02 (−0.04, −0.01)

−0.19 (−0.25, −0.13)

−0.10 (−0.12, −0.07)

 < 0.001

LS > AS, DS

Premolar

−0.31 (−0.35, −0.27)

−0.06 (−0.09, −0.02)

−0.35 (−0.39, −0.31)

 < 0.001

DS > LS, AS

−0.03 (−0.06, −0.01)

−0.14 (−0.19, −0.08)

−0.09 (−0.12, −0.06)

 < 0.001

LS > AS, DS

Molar

−0.08 (−0.14, −0.02)

0.68 (0.60, 0.76)

0.61 (0.51, 0.71)

 < 0.001

DS, AS > LS

−0.02 (−0.06, 0.02)

−0.11 (−0.18, −0.04)

−0.08 (−0.12, −0.05)

 < 0.001

LS > AS, DS

Lower

Incisal

−0.26 (−0.30, −0.23)

−0.01 (−0.06, 0.04)

−0.07 (−0.11, −0.04)

 < 0.001

DS > AS > LS

0.00 (−0.01, 0.01)

−0.18 (−0.23, −0.13)

−0.11 (−0.13, −0.08)

 < 0.001

LS > AS, DS

Canine

−0.26 (−0.32, −0.20)

0.06 (−0.02, 0.14)

−0.14 (−0.18, −0.10)

 < 0.001

DS > AS > LS

0.00 (−0.02, 0.02)

−0.13 (−0.20, −0.07)

−0.09 (−0.13, −0.06)

 < 0.001

LS > AS, DS

Premolar

−0.31 (−0.35, −0.28)

−0.06 (−0.10, −0.03)

−0.15 (−0.19, −0.12)

 < 0.001

DS > AS > LS

−0.03 (−0.07, 0.01)

−0.15 (−0.18, −0.11)

−0.10 (−0.12, −0.08)

 < 0.001

LS > AS, DS

Molar

−0.13 (−0.17, −0.09)

0.24 (0.19, 0.29)

0.20 (0.16, 0.24)

 < 0.001

DS, AS > LS

0.00 (−0.01, 0.01)

−0.09 (−0.14, −0.04)

−0.06 (−0.08, −0.04)

 < 0.001

LS > AS, DS

  1. The means of the MD width error ranged from −0.31 to −0.08 mm, −0.09 to 0.68 mm, and −0.35 to 0.61) mm in the LS, DS, and AS groups, respectively. There were statistically significant differences in all tooth groups (p < 0.001, post hoc: DS > AS > LS in upper incisal, lower incisal, lower canine, and lower premolar; DS, AS > LS in upper canine, upper and lower molar, DS > LS, AS in upper premolar). The means of the CCH error ranged from −0.03 to 0.00 mm, −0.21 to −0.09 mm, and −0.11 to −0.06 mm in the LS, DS, and AS groups, respectively. There were statistically significant differences in all tooth groups (p < 0.001, post hoc test: LS > DS, AS).
  2. Data are given as the mean (95% confidence interval).
  3. ap values were derived from Friedman test; Shapiro–Wilk’s test was employed to test the normality assumption; *p < 0.05.
Back to article page