A benchmark for comparison of dental radiography analysis algorithms

Medical Image Analysis

Volumn 31, Issue , 2016, Pages 63-76

  Wang, Ching Wei ^a   Huang, Cheng Ta ^a   Lee, Jia Hong ^a   Li, Chung Hsing ^b,c   Chang, Sheng Wei ^b   Siao, Ming Jhih ^b   Lai, Tat Ming ^d   Ibragimov, Bulat ^e   Vrtovec, Tomaž ^e   Ronneberger, Olaf ^f   Fischer, Philipp ^f   Cootes, Tim F ^g   Lindner, Claudia ^g  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Taiwan)

^b TRI SERVICE GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Taiwan)

^c NATIONAL DEFENSE MEDICAL CENTER   (Taiwan)

^d CARDINAL TIEN HOSPITAL   (Taiwan)

^e UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA   (Slovenia)

^f UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Anatomical segmentation and classification; Bitewing radiography analysis; Cephalometric tracing; Challenge and benchmark

Indexed keywords

BIOINFORMATICS; DIAGNOSIS; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MEDICAL IMAGING;

ANALYSIS ALGORITHMS; BIOMEDICAL IMAGING; BITEWING RADIOGRAPHY ANALYSIS; CEPHALOMETRIC TRACING; EVALUATION SOFTWARE; OBJECTIVE EVALUATION; QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION; RESEARCH COMMUNITIES;

X RAY RADIOGRAPHY;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DENTAL CARIES; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY; X RAY; BENCHMARKING; CEPHALOMETRY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; EVALUATION STUDY; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARDS; TAIWAN;

ALGORITHMS; BENCHMARKING; CEPHALOMETRY; HUMANS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RADIOGRAPHY, BITEWING; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TAIWAN;

EID: 84960353898     PISSN: 13618415     EISSN: 13618423     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2016.02.004     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Breiman L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 2001, 45:5-32.
2. Cootes T. Active shape models - their training and application. Comput. Vis. Image Und. 1995, 61:38-59.
3. Dosovitskiy A. Discriminative unsupervised feature learning with convolutional neural networks 2014, In: NIPS.
4. Downs W.B. Variations in facial relationship, their significance in treatment and prognosis. Am. J. Orthod. 1948, 34(10):812-840.
5. Gayathri V., Menon H.P. Challenges in edge extraction of dental x-ray images using image processing algorithms - a review. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol. 2014, 5:5355-5358.
6. Huh J. Studies of automatic dental cavity detection system as an auxiliary tool for diagnosis of dental caries in digital x-ray image. Progr. Med. Phys. 2015, 25:52-58.
7. Ibragimov B. A game-theoretic framework for landmark-based image segmentation. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 2012, 31(9):1761-1776.
8. Ibragimov B. Shape representation for efficient landmark-based segmentation in 3d. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 2014, 33(4):861-874.
9. Ibragimov B. Segmentation of tongue muscles from super-resolution magnetic resonance images. Med. Image Anal. 2015, 20(1):198-207.
10. Jain A.K., Chen H. Matching of dental x-ray images for human identification. Pattern Recognit. 2004, 37:1519-1532.
11. Jia Y. Caffe: convolutional architecture for fast feature embedding. Proc. ACM Int. Conf. Multimed. 2014, 675-678.
12. Kim Y.H. Overbite depth indicator: with particular reference to anterior openbite. Am. J. Orthod. 1974, 65(6):586-611.
13. Kim Y.H., Vietas J.J. Anteroposterior dysplasia indicator: an adjunct to cephalometric differential diagnosis. Am. J. Orthod. 1978, 73(6):619-633.
14. Kumar Extraoral periapical radiography: an alternative approach to intraoral periapical radiography. Imag. Sci. Dent. 2011, 41:161-165.
15. Lai Y.H., Lin P.L. Effective segmentation for dental x-ray images using texture-based fuzzy inference system. Adv. Concepts Intell. Vis. Syst. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 2008, 5259:936-947.
16. Lin P.L. An effective classification and numbering system for dental bitewing radiographs using teeth region and contour information. Pattern Recognit. 2010, 43:1380-1392.
17. Lindner C., et al. Fully automatic segmentation of the proximal femur using random forest regression voting. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 2013, 32:1462-1472.
18. Lindner C., et al. Robust and accurate shape model matching using random forest regression-voting. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2015, 37:1862-1874.
19. Lpez-Lpez J. Computer-aided system for morphometric mandibular index computation (using dental panoramic radiographs). Med. Oral Patol. Oral 2012, 17:e624-e632.
20. McNamara J.J. A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am. J. Orthod. 1984, 86(6):449-469.
21. Nakamoto T. A computer-aided diagnosis system to screen for osteoporosis using dental panoramic radiographs. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2008, 37:274-281.
22. Nanda R., Nanda R.S. Cephalometric study of the dentofacial complex of north indians. Angl. Orthod. 1969, 39(1):22-28.
23. Nikneshan S. The effect of emboss enhancement on reliability of landmark identification in digital lateral cephalometric images. Iran. J. Radiol. 2015, 12:e19302.
24. Oliveira J., Proenc H. Caries detection in panoramic dental x-ray images. Comput. Vis. Med. Image Process.: Recent Trends, Comput. Meth. Appl. Sci. 2011, 19:175-190.
25. Rad A.E. Digital dental X-ray image segmentation and feature extraction. TELKOMNIKA 2013, 11:3109-3114.
26. Ricketts R.M., et al. Orthodontic Diagnosis and Planning, I and II 1982, Rocky Mountain Orthod, Denver.
27. Ronneberger O. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI) 2015.
28. Sassouni V. A roentgenographic cephalometric analysis of cephalo-facio-dental relationships. Am. J. Orthod. 1955, 41:735-764.
29. Steiner C.C. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am. J. Orthod. 1953, 39(10):729-755.
30. Tweed C. The frankfort-mandibular plane angle in orthodontic diagnosis, classification, treatment planning, and prognosis. Am. J. Orthod. Oral Surg. 1946, 32(1):175-230.
31. Tweed C.H. The frankfort mandibular incisal angle (FMIA) in orthodontic diagnosis, treatment planning, and prognosis. Angl. Orthod. 1954, 24:121-169.
32. Viola P., Jones M. Rapid object detection using a boosted cascade of simple features. Proceedings CVPR 2001 2001, 511-518.
33. Wang C.W. Evaluation and comparison of anatomical landmark detection methods for cephalometric X-ray images: A grand challenge. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 2015, 34(9):1-11.
34. Wenzel A. Computer-automated caries detection in digital bitewings: consistency of a program and its influence on observer agreement. Caries Res. 2001, 35(1):12-20.
35. Wenzel A., et al. Accuracy of computer-automated caries detection in digital radiographs compared with human observers. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2002, 110(3):199-203.
36. Wriedt S. Impacted upper canines: examination and treatment proposal based on 3d versus 2d diagnosis. J. Orofac. Orthop. 2012, 73:28-40.
37. Zhou J., Abdel-Mottaleb M. A content-based system for human identification based on bitewing dental X-ray images. Pattern Recognit. 2005, 38:2132-2142.