Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 49 references

Oral Imaging for Malocclusion Issues Assessments: OMNI Dataset, Deep Learning Baselines and Benchmarking

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces OMNI, the first publicly available multi-view RGB dental image dataset for malocclusion diagnosis, and benchmarks six deep-learning detectors on it.

desk verdict A genuinely novel dental dataset with a real gap-filling claim, but the benchmark numbers need a patient-disjoint split and label-quality metrics before they can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15637 v1 pith:2OERACOJ submitted 2025-05-21 cs.CV

Pujun Xue , Junyi Ge , Xiaotong Jiang , Siyang Song , Zijian Wu , Yupeng Huo , Weicheng Xie , Linlin Shen
show 3 more authors
Xiaoqin Zhou Xiaofeng Liu Min Gu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords malocclusiondiagnosisdentalimagedatasetdeeplearningbenchmarkobjectdetectionmulti-vieworalimagingteethlocalizationgraphneuralnetworkRGBphotography
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's central claim is that the field lacked a large, accurately labelled, publicly available image dataset for malocclusion, and that the new OMNI dataset fills that gap. It reports 4,166 natural RGB photographs of the oral cavity from 384 patients, covering five standard views and annotated by dentists for ten malocclusion-related categories, including healthy teeth. The paper benchmarks six deep-learning detectors on this data and shows that they can localize teeth and recognise several malocclusion issues with useful accuracy. A sympathetic reader would care because this makes automated malocclusion screening research possible without X-ray imaging and gives future work a common evaluation set.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the OMNI dataset itself: a standardised five-view RGB imaging protocol with explicit rules for centering the dental midline and arch, followed by a two-stage annotation process (tooth bounding boxes, then categorical malocclusion labels) reviewed by senior dentists. The supporting pieces of machinery are the six detection baselines, of which GraphTeethNet is the paper's own addition. GraphTeethNet builds a tooth-relation graph in which each directed edge is a multi-dimensional feature learned by cross-attention between tooth proposals and global image features; the ablation shows that including these edge features raises mAP from 35.69 to 37.20 and mAP@0.5 from 62.09 to 63.89.

What would settle it

Have an independent panel of orthodontists re-annotate a random subset of the OMNI images and compare their labels with the released ones; if per-category agreement is low, or if labels diverge from X-ray or dental records, the benchmark numbers reflect annotation noise rather than diagnostic skill.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

OMNI is put forward as the first publicly available multi-view dental image dataset built for automated malocclusion diagnosis. It contains 4,166 RGB photographs taken with a standard camera from frontal, left, right, maxillary, and mandibular views, collected from 384 patients; each image has teeth localised by bounding boxes and is labelled for ten categories: healthy teeth, tooth torsion, deep overjet, invisible orthodontic attachment, tooth emergence, cast fixed orthodontic appliances, tooth misalignment, mandibular retrusion, orthodontic brace, and fixed orthodontic device. The paper argues that its multi-view RGB format avoids the radiation exposure and operational complexity of X-ray datasets, and that its size, patient diversity, and dentist-reviewed annotations support deep learning training. It validates the dataset by training three CNN detectors, two Transformer detectors, and one graph-based detector, with the graph-based GraphTeethNet adding learned multi-dimensional edge features between teeth and the best overall mAP@0.5 of 66.39 reported for Deformable DETR.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the dentist-produced labels are accurate and consistent enough to serve as ground truth, since no inter-annotator agreement or independent clinical validation is reported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Automated malocclusion diagnosis can be studied and deployed from ordinary RGB photography, avoiding radiation exposure in screening pipelines.
  • The six published baselines give the community a common yardstick: future detectors on OMNI can be compared directly against these numbers.
  • The five-view acquisition protocol can serve as a template for collecting dental image data in clinical settings.
  • Graph-based modelling of inter-tooth relationships is shown to be a workable direction for oral image diagnosis, not just for teeth segmentation.
  • The reported category imbalance marks rare-condition recall as a concrete bottleneck for practical use.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the images are ordinary dental-chair photographs, a primary-care or public-health screening tool for malocclusion could be built from this benchmark without X-ray equipment; the paper itself does not build such a tool.
  • If label quality is later verified against orthodontic records, the same five-view protocol could be extended to other oral conditions such as caries and gum inflammation.
  • The dataset was collected over first and follow-up visits, so a natural next step is to use the tooth-relation graph to predict treatment progression across time, which the current single-image benchmark does not exploit.
  • The largest performance differences between models are concentrated in rare categories, so class-balanced training and better label strategies may matter more than architecture choice for practical accuracy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces OMNI, a dataset of 4,166 RGB intraoral photographs from 384 patients across five views (frontal, left, right, maxillary, mandibular), annotated with ten categories related to malocclusion. The authors benchmark six object-detection baselines (Faster R-CNN, Mask R-CNN, EfficientDet, DETR, Deformable DETR, and a proposed GraphTeethNet) and report mAP metrics. They claim that OMNI is the first publicly available multi-view dental image dataset for malocclusion diagnosis and that the benchmark shows deep learning can address this task.

Significance. If the dataset is reliable and the split is sound, OMNI would be a useful community resource: it is larger than most existing malocclusion-related dental image collections, avoids X-ray acquisition, includes multiple views, and the authors publicly release dataset and code. The paper also provides a reasonable first baseline comparison and a new graph-based detector, GraphTeethNet, whose multi-dimensional edge features are ablated. The main strengths are the dataset release, the breadth of baseline models, and the ablation studies. However, the benchmark's validity depends on two currently unverified conditions: that no participant appears in both training and test partitions, and that the annotation unit (per-image vs. per-tooth) matches the object-detection evaluation. The absence of label-agreement metrics and single-run results further limits the quantitative claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-A3] The train/val/test split is described only by image counts (2,481/857/828) and no participant-disjoint restriction is stated. Since Section III-A1 says the 4,166 images come from 384 participants across first and follow-up visits, an image-level random split can place different views of the same participant in both training and test sets. Patient-specific appearance cues (teeth shape, gingiva, orthodontic appliances) could then be memorized rather than diagnostic generalization being measured, which is especially likely for patient-stable classes such as OB, FOD, and IOA. The authors should either confirm that all images of each participant are confined to one split or rerun the benchmark under a participant-disjoint split and report both sets of results.
  2. [Section III-B and Table I] The annotation unit is ambiguous. Section III-B2 states that every tooth is localized with a bounding box, while Section III-B3 says malocclusion issues are 'labelled for each image' and Table I reports numbers of images per class. The benchmark, however, evaluates object-detection mAP, which requires per-instance labels. If image-level labels are attached to all teeth boxes in an image, the AP values in Table III do not have the standard detection interpretation and may be inflated. The authors must specify whether each box carries its own class label or whether the image label is copied to all boxes, and provide per-unit label statistics.
  3. [Section III-B3] The class taxonomy mixes diagnoses and treatment artifacts in a way that needs justification: HT and TE are not malocclusion issues, while IOA, OB, CFOA, and FOD are orthodontic appliances or devices. In addition, the definitions of OB and FOD overlap, and CFOA overlaps with fixed appliances. If these are intended as separate detection categories, the paper should explain how overlapping labels were resolved during annotation; otherwise ambiguous ground truth can bias the per-category AP reported in Table III.
  4. [Section III-B4 and Table III] No inter-annotator agreement, adjudication counts, or label-quality metric is reported, and all results come from a single training run. This is not merely a formal issue: for category TM, Table III reports AP values ranging from 8.07 (EfficientDet) to 51.81 (GraphTeethNet) despite only 147 TM images, and no confidence interval would allow a reader to judge whether any difference between models is meaningful. The authors should add agreement statistics on a labeled subset and report mean and standard deviation over multiple seeds or bootstrap confidence intervals before claiming that the models 'can accurately recognize various malocclusion issues.'
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table III] The column header 'Epoches' is misspelled, and the parenthesized epoch numbers should be explained in the table caption.
  2. [Fig. 1] The caption describes four acquisition panels, but the text says the dataset contains five views; please clarify whether the lateral photographs combine left and right views and make the correspondence between figure panels and the five views explicit.
  3. [Section I] There are several grammatical errors, e.g., 'This papers conducted,' 'There are already exists numerous dental image datasets,' and 'prevent the development'; a careful language edit is needed.
  4. [Section III-A1] The dataset release page is a GitHub repository, but the paper does not state a license, data-use agreement, or plan for long-term archival; adding a persistent DOI or institutional repository link would strengthen the 'publicly available' claim.
  5. [Section IV-C] The Tbox parameter is introduced as 'restricted to 50' but no sensitivity analysis or justification for this value is given; please note whether the reported GraphTeethNet results are stable to this choice.
  6. [Section V-B] The comparison across baselines uses different training epochs (50 or 300) and different frameworks (MMDetection vs. PyTorch); while this is acceptable for a baseline benchmark, the paper should state explicitly that wall-clock or convergence criteria differ, so readers do not interpret the rankings as equal-budget comparisons.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the OMNI dataset and its benchmark results are self-contained; the only self-citation (GRATIS provenance for GraphTeethNet) is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim is the creation of a new labeled dataset (4166 RGB images, 384 participants, five views, ten malocclusion categories), with labels produced by a dentist review pipeline (Section III-B) and benchmark numbers measured by training six models on a training split and evaluating on a test split (Section III-A3, Tables III-VI). The dataset claim does not presuppose any model output, and the benchmark numbers are empirical measurements, not quantities that are defined in terms of the fitted models. The only self-citation is the statement that GraphTeethNet is 'inspired by the generic GRATIS [46], [47]' (Section IV-C); this is architectural provenance for one baseline, and the ablation studies (Tables IV-V) evaluate its components empirically, so no load-bearing argument reduces to the self-citation. The paper itself notes a real limitation: 'The class imbalance in the dataset can affect model performance' (Section VI). Also, Section III-A3 describes the train/validation/test split only by image counts and does not explicitly state a patient-disjoint split; if images from the same participant appear in both training and test sets, the Table III numbers could overstate generalization. That is a benchmark-validity risk, not a circularity step, because the text does not exhibit a construction in which the test outcome is equivalent to the training fit. Under the required reduction standard, the derivation chain is self-contained; score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces a dataset and a model architecture, not a new physical entity. The load-bearing assumptions are domain assumptions about the informativeness of RGB images for malocclusion, the coherence of the class taxonomy, annotation reliability, and the choice of evaluation metric.

free parameters (2)
  • Tbox (max number of teeth proposals in GraphTeethNet) = 50
    Hand-set limit on graph nodes in GraphTeethNet (Section IV-C); affects edge-feature computation and performance, but is not a fitted physical parameter.
  • Training hyperparameters (epochs, learning rate, weight decay) = 50/300/100 epochs, lr 1e-4, wd 0.05
    Hand-selected per Section V-B; they influence the reported mAP values but not the dataset claim itself.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Skeletal and soft-tissue malocclusion signs (e.g., mandibular retrusion) are visually identifiable in RGB intraoral photographs.
    Section III-A2 uses only a Canon RGB camera and natural light; no X-ray or 3D data is collected. MR is defined as a skeletal condition (Section III-B3), which typically requires cephalometric imaging for clinical diagnosis. The paper does not validate photo-based labels against such a standard.
  • domain assumption The ten annotated categories constitute a coherent set of 'malocclusion issues'.
    Table I includes orthodontic appliances (IOA, OB, FOD, CFOA) and a normal developmental stage (TE), which are not malocclusion abnormalities. The paper uses the term 'malocclusion issues' for all ten, which broadens the stated scope.
  • domain assumption The dentist review process guarantees accurate annotations.
    Section III-B4 describes a panel review but reports no inter-annotator agreement, no label error rate, and no gold-standard comparison; the benchmark inherits this assumption.
  • domain assumption Object detection mAP is an appropriate surrogate for diagnostic performance.
    Evaluation uses only detection metrics (Section IV-D); no patient-level sensitivity/specificity or clinical utility measure is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Oral Imaging for Malocclusion Issues Assessments: OMNI Dataset, Deep Learning Baselines and Benchmarking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2OERACOJ

@misc{pith2026250515637,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Oral Imaging for Malocclusion Issues Assessments: OMNI Dataset, Deep Learning Baselines and Benchmarking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2OERACOJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15637}
}
read the original abstract

Malocclusion is a major challenge in orthodontics, and its complex presentation and diverse clinical manifestations make accurate localization and diagnosis particularly important. Currently, one of the major shortcomings facing the field of dental image analysis is the lack of large-scale, accurately labeled datasets dedicated to malocclusion issues, which limits the development of automated diagnostics in the field of dentistry and leads to a lack of diagnostic accuracy and efficiency in clinical practice. Therefore, in this study, we propose the Oral and Maxillofacial Natural Images (OMNI) dataset, a novel and comprehensive dental image dataset aimed at advancing the study of analyzing dental images for issues of malocclusion. Specifically, the dataset contains 4166 multi-view images with 384 participants in data collection and annotated by professional dentists. In addition, we performed a comprehensive validation of the created OMNI dataset, including three CNN-based methods, two Transformer-based methods, and one GNN-based method, and conducted automated diagnostic experiments for malocclusion issues. The experimental results show that the OMNI dataset can facilitate the automated diagnosis research of malocclusion issues and provide a new benchmark for the research in this field. Our OMNI dataset and baseline code are publicly available at https://github.com/RoundFaceJ/OMNI.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15637 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multi-view malocclusion dental image acquisition process. (a) the acquisition of maxillary maxillofacial photographs; (b) the acquisition of mandibular maxillofacial photographs; (c) the acquisition of frontal occlusal photographs; and (d) the acquisition of lateral occlusal pho￾tographs. infection, and periodontitis. Lee et al. [9] adapted GoogLeNet Inception v3 [29] using transfer learning for more accurate caries… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sample images of teeth from five different views. From left to right: frontal, right side, left side, maxillary and mandibular view. TABLE I MALOCCLUSION ISSUE CATEGORIES AND THEIR EXAMPLE NUMBERS ANNOTATED IN OUR OMNI DATASET. Classes Specialized medical terms Quantities HT Healthy Teeth 3610 TT Tooth Torsion 1686 DO Deep Overjet 205 IOA Invisible Orthodontic Attachment 402 TE Tooth Emergence 441 CFOA Cast Fixed Or… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The annotation tool and annotated examples. (a) Makesense.ai’s operation page; (b) example of the annotation process; (c) the original dental image; and (d) the annotated dental image A. CNN-based baselines Faster R-CNN. Faster R-CNN [42] is an object detection model, which introduces a pre-trained CNN (e.g., ResNet) as a feature extractor, followed by the RPN generating candidate regions, which are then unified to … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of our GraphTeethNet baseline. relevant cues for the teeth in F T S j,x . Finally, the obtained F T R i,j,x, F T R j,i,x are input into GAP layer to obtain the multi-dimensional edge feature vectors ei,j and ej,i . In this way, the edge feature vectors ei,…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Category-wise mAP Analysis. Table III provide a detailed comparison of mAP@0.5 for each category across all baseline models, and the validity of the models varied across cate￾gories. We assume this is caused by the varying complexities and challenges associated with ea…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The impact of malocclusion and its treatment on quality of life: a literature review,

    M. Zhang, C. McGrath, and U. H ¨agg, “The impact of malocclusion and its treatment on quality of life: a literature review,” International journal of paediatric dentistry , vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 381–387, 2006

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Occlusion, malocclusion and method of measurements-an overview,

    R. Hassan and A. Rahimah, “Occlusion, malocclusion and method of measurements-an overview,” Archives of orofacial sciences , vol. 2, pp. 3–9, 2007

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Trends and application of artificial intelligence technology in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment plan- ning—a review,

    F. Albalawi and K. A. Alamoud, “Trends and application of artificial intelligence technology in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment plan- ning—a review,” Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 22, p. 11864, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    The current status of cone beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics,

    S. Kapila, R. Conley, and W. Harrell Jr, “The current status of cone beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics,” Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 24–34, 2011

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Deep learning for healthcare: review, opportunities and challenges,

    R. Miotto, F. Wang, S. Wang, X. Jiang, and J. T. Dudley, “Deep learning for healthcare: review, opportunities and challenges,” Briefings in bioinformatics, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1236–1246, 2018

    2018

  6. [6]

    Spectral representation of behaviour primitives for depression analysis,

    S. Song, S. Jaiswal, L. Shen, and M. Valstar, “Spectral representation of behaviour primitives for depression analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 829–844, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    A review on deep learning approaches in healthcare systems: Taxonomies, challenges, and open issues,

    S. Shamshirband, M. Fathi, A. Dehzangi, A. T. Chronopoulos, and H. Alinejad-Rokny, “A review on deep learning approaches in healthcare systems: Taxonomies, challenges, and open issues,” Journal of Biomed- ical Informatics, vol. 113, p. 103627, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Classification of dental diseases using cnn and transfer learning,

    S. A. Prajapati, R. Nagaraj, and S. Mitra, “Classification of dental diseases using cnn and transfer learning,” in 2017 5th International Symposium on Computational and Business Intelligence (ISCBI). IEEE, 2017, pp. 70–74

    work page 2017

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Detection and diagnosis of dental caries using a deep learning-based convolutional neural network algorithm,

    J.-H. Lee, D.-H. Kim, S.-N. Jeong, and S.-H. Choi, “Detection and diagnosis of dental caries using a deep learning-based convolutional neural network algorithm,” Journal of dentistry , vol. 77, pp. 106–111, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    D. M. Alalharith, H. M. Alharthi, W. M. Alghamdi, Y . M. Alsenbel, N. Aslam, I. U. Khan, S. Y . Shahin, S. Dianiˇskov´a, M. S. Alhareky, and K. K. Barouch, “A deep learning-based approach for the detection of 10 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, VOL. XX, NO. XX, XXXX 2025 ...

    2025

  3. [11]

    Tooth detection and numbering in panoramic radiographs using convo- lutional neural networks,

    D. V . Tuzoff, L. N. Tuzova, M. M. Bornstein, A. S. Krasnov, M. A. Kharchenko, S. I. Nikolenko, M. M. Sveshnikov, and G. B. Bednenko, “Tooth detection and numbering in panoramic radiographs using convo- lutional neural networks,” Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, vol. 48, no. 4, p...

    2019

  4. [12]

    Review of deep learning: concepts, cnn architectures, challenges, applications, future directions,

    L. Alzubaidi, J. Zhang, A. J. Humaidi, A. Al-Dujaili, Y . Duan, O. Al- Shamma, J. Santamar ´ıa, M. A. Fadhel, M. Al-Amidie, and L. Farhan, “Review of deep learning: concepts, cnn architectures, challenges, applications, future directions,” Journal of big Data , vol. 8, pp. 1–74, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Transformer-based deep learning network for tooth segmentation on panoramic radiographs,

    C. Sheng, L. Wang, Z. Huang, T. Wang, Y . Guo, W. Hou, L. Xu, J. Wang, and X. Yan, “Transformer-based deep learning network for tooth segmentation on panoramic radiographs,” Journal of Systems Science and Complexity , vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 257–272, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Self-supervised learning with masked im- age modeling for teeth numbering, detection of dental restorations, and instance segmentation in dental panoramic radiographs,

    A. Almalki and L. J. Latecki, “Self-supervised learning with masked im- age modeling for teeth numbering, detection of dental restorations, and instance segmentation in dental panoramic radiographs,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer ...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Self-attention with relative position representations,

    P. Shaw, J. Uszkoreit, and A. Vaswani, “Self-attention with relative position representations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.02155 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Meshsnet: Deep multi-scale mesh feature learning for end-to-end tooth labeling on 3d dental surfaces,

    C. Lian, L. Wang, T.-H. Wu, M. Liu, F. Dur ´an, C.-C. Ko, and D. Shen, “Meshsnet: Deep multi-scale mesh feature learning for end-to-end tooth labeling on 3d dental surfaces,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conferen...

    2019

  9. [17]

    Tucnet: A channel and spatial attention-based graph convolutional network for teeth upsampling and completion,

    M. Liu, X. Li, J. Liu, W. Liu, and Z. Yu, “Tucnet: A channel and spatial attention-based graph convolutional network for teeth upsampling and completion,” Computers in Biology and Medicine , vol. 166, p. 107519, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks,

    Z. Wu, S. Pan, F. Chen, G. Long, C. Zhang, and S. Y . Philip, “A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks,” IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems , vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 4–24, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Deep multi-scale mesh feature learning for automated labeling of raw dental surfaces from 3d intraoral scanners,

    C. Lian, L. Wang, T.-H. Wu, F. Wang, P.-T. Yap, C.-C. Ko, and D. Shen, “Deep multi-scale mesh feature learning for automated labeling of raw dental surfaces from 3d intraoral scanners,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 2440–2450, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Deep instance segmentation of teeth in panoramic x-ray images,

    G. Jader, J. Fontineli, M. Ruiz, K. Abdalla, M. Pithon, and L. Oliveira, “Deep instance segmentation of teeth in panoramic x-ray images,” in 2018 31st SIBGRAPI Conference on Graphics, Patterns and Images (SIBGRAPI). IEEE, 2018, pp. 400–407

    2018

  13. [21]

    Dentnet: Deep neural transfer network for the detection of periodontal bone loss using panoramic dental radiographs,

    J. Kim, H.-S. Lee, I.-S. Song, and K.-H. Jung, “Dentnet: Deep neural transfer network for the detection of periodontal bone loss using panoramic dental radiographs,” Scientific reports, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 17615, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Teeth detection and dental problem classification in panoramic x-ray images using deep learning and image processing techniques,

    M. P. Muresan, A. R. Barbura, and S. Nedevschi, “Teeth detection and dental problem classification in panoramic x-ray images using deep learning and image processing techniques,” in 2020 IEEE 16th International Conference on Intelligent Computer Communication and Processing (I...

    2020

  15. [23]

    Digital dental x-ray database for caries screening,

    A. E. Rad, M. S. M. Rahim, A. Rehman, and T. Saba, “Digital dental x-ray database for caries screening,” 3D Research, vol. 7, pp. 1–5, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Children’s dental panoramic radiographs dataset for caries segmentation and dental disease detection,

    Y . Zhang, F. Ye, L. Chen, F. Xu, X. Chen, H. Wu, M. Cao, Y . Li, Y . Wang, and X. Huang, “Children’s dental panoramic radiographs dataset for caries segmentation and dental disease detection,” Scientific Data, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 380, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Diffusion-based hierarchical multi-label object detection to analyze panoramic dental x-rays,

    I. E. Hamamci, S. Er, E. Simsar, A. Sekuboyina, M. Gundogar, B. Stadlinger, A. Mehl, and B. Menze, “Diffusion-based hierarchical multi-label object detection to analyze panoramic dental x-rays,” in International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer- Assisted Inte...

    2023

  18. [26]

    Multi-level uncertainty aware learning for semi-supervised dental panoramic caries segmentation,

    X. Wang, S. Gao, K. Jiang, H. Zhang, L. Wang, F. Chen, J. Yu, and F. Yang, “Multi-level uncertainty aware learning for semi-supervised dental panoramic caries segmentation,” Neurocomputing, vol. 540, p. 126208, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Automatic segmenting teeth in x-ray images: Trends, a novel data set, benchmarking and future perspectives,

    G. Silva, L. Oliveira, and M. Pithon, “Automatic segmenting teeth in x-ray images: Trends, a novel data set, benchmarking and future perspectives,” Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 107, pp. 15–31, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,

    K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision,

    C. Szegedy, V . Vanhoucke, S. Ioffe, J. Shlens, and Z. Wojna, “Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 2818–2826

    2016

  22. [30]

    Optimization technique combined with deep learning method for teeth recognition in dental panoramic radiographs,

    F. P. Mahdi, K. Motoki, and S. Kobashi, “Optimization technique combined with deep learning method for teeth recognition in dental panoramic radiographs,” Scientific reports, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 19261, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Utilizing mask r-cnn for detection and segmentation of oral diseases,

    R. Anantharaman, M. Velazquez, and Y . Lee, “Utilizing mask r-cnn for detection and segmentation of oral diseases,” in 2018 IEEE international conference on bioinformatics and biomedicine (BIBM) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 2197–2204

    2018

  24. [32]

    Mask r-cnn,

    K. He, G. Gkioxari, P. Doll ´ar, and R. Girshick, “Mask r-cnn,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , 2017, pp. 2961–2969

    2017

  25. [33]

    Rdfnet: A fast caries detec- tion method incorporating transformer mechanism,

    H. Jiang, P. Zhang, C. Che, and B. Jin, “Rdfnet: A fast caries detec- tion method incorporating transformer mechanism,” Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine , vol. 2021, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Cavit: Early stage dental caries detection from smartphone-image using vision transformer,

    M. S. Hossain, M. M. Rahman, M. M. Syeed, U. H. Hannan, M. F. Uddin, and S. B. Mumu, “Cavit: Early stage dental caries detection from smartphone-image using vision transformer,” in 2023 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Control (AIRC) . IEEE...

    2023

  27. [35]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly et al., “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 , 2020

    2010 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows,

    Z. Liu, Y . Lin, Y . Cao, H. Hu, Y . Wei, Z. Zhang, S. Lin, and B. Guo, “Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2021, pp. 10 012–10 022

    2021

  29. [37]

    Detection transformer for teeth detection, segmenta- tion, and numbering in oral rare diseases: Focus on data augmentation and inpainting techniques,

    H. Kadi, T. Sourget, M. Kawczynski, S. Bendjama, B. Grollemund, and A. Bloch-Zupan, “Detection transformer for teeth detection, segmenta- tion, and numbering in oral rare diseases: Focus on data augmentation and inpainting techniques,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04408 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    End-to-end object detection with transformers,

    N. Carion, F. Massa, G. Synnaeve, N. Usunier, A. Kirillov, and S. Zagoruyko, “End-to-end object detection with transformers,” in European conference on computer vision . Springer, 2020, pp. 213– 229

    2020

  31. [39]

    Vision gnn: An image is worth graph of nodes,

    K. Han, Y . Wang, J. Guo, Y . Tang, and E. Wu, “Vision gnn: An image is worth graph of nodes,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 8291–8303, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    The declaration of helsinki and public health,

    J. R. Williams, “The declaration of helsinki and public health,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization , vol. 86, pp. 650–652, 2008

    2008

  33. [41]

    Z. H. Zhao, Orthodontics, 7th ed. Beijing: People’s Medical Publishing House, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks,

    S. Ren, K. He, R. Girshick, and J. Sun, “Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1137–1149, 2016

    2016

  35. [43]

    Efficientdet: Scalable and efficient object detection,

    M. Tan, R. Pang, and Q. V . Le, “Efficientdet: Scalable and efficient object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2020, pp. 10 781–10 790

    2020

  36. [44]

    Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks,

    M. Tan, “Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.11946 , 2019

    1905 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Deformable detr: Deformable transformers for end-to-end object detection,

    X. Zhu, W. Su, L. Lu, B. Li, X. Wang, and J. Dai, “Deformable detr: Deformable transformers for end-to-end object detection,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04159, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Gratis: Deep learning graph representation with task-specific topology and multi-dimensional edge features,

    S. Song, Y . Song, C. Luo, Z. Song, S. Kuzucu, X. Jia, Z. Guo, W. Xie, L. Shen, and H. Gunes, “Gratis: Deep learning graph representation with task-specific topology and multi-dimensional edge features,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.12482, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Learning multi- dimensional edge feature-based au relation graph for facial action unit recognition,

    C. Luo, S. Song, W. Xie, L. Shen, and H. Gunes, “Learning multi- dimensional edge feature-based au relation graph for facial action unit recognition,” in Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-22 , 2022, pp. 1239–1246

    2022

  40. [48]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,

    J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei, “Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,” in 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . Ieee, 2009, pp. 248–255

    2009

  41. [49]

    MMDetection: Open mmlab detection toolbox and benchmark,

    K. Chen, J. Wang, J. Pang, Y . Cao, Y . Xiong, X. Li, S. Sun, W. Feng, Z. Liu, J. Xu, Z. Zhang, D. Cheng, C. Zhu, T. Cheng, Q. Zhao, B. Li, X. Lu, R. Zhu, Y . Wu, J. Dai, J. Wang, J. Shi, W. Ouyang, C. C. Loy, and D. Lin, “MMDetection: Open mmlab detection toolbox and benchmar...

    1906 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.