Deep learning–assisted cone-beam computed tomographic analysis of condylar changes after mandibular setback surgery

Abstract

This study aimed to assess condylar changes using a fully automated deep learning–based cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) workflow. Preoperative and postoperative CBCT scans of 50 skeletal Class III patients (100 condyles) were analysed using a fully automated pipeline integrating nnU-Net–based segmentation, rigid surface registration, and standardised surface cropping. Condylar changes were quantified using volumetric and linear measurements and surface-based metrics. Segmentation accuracy was high (Dice: mandible 0.98, condyle 0.99). Mean (SD) condylar volume changes ranged from −12.3 (6.2) to −0.03 (11.1) mm 3 on the left and from −11.3 (10.7) to −0.95 (12.6) mm 3 on the right. Significant differences in inter-side volume were observed in left and right rotation groups (p = 0.003), but not in the non-rotation group (p = 0.442). Direction of mandibular rotation significantly affected change in condylar volume bilaterally (p = 0.039). Surface-based metrics differed significantly among rotation groups (p = 0.036). Change in condylar volume showed a negative correlation with preoperative volume (r = −0.44 to −0.77, p < 0.001). Condylar remodelling after mandibular setback surgery is rotation-dependent and regionally heterogeneous. The proposed automated CBCT-based workflow enables reproducible, operator-independent quantification of condylar changes, and provides a standardised framework for postoperative assessment.

Introductıon

In skeletal Class III malocclusions, mandibular setback surgery alters mandibular position and loading patterns, and potentially induces short-term and long-term adaptive or adverse changes in the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). Postoperative condylar remodelling in particular, may range from physiological adaptation to progressive condylar resorption, which has been associated with skeletal instability, relapse, and TMJ-related symptoms. , Consequently, accurate and reproducible quantification of condylar changes is essential for evaluating postoperative outcomes and long-term stability following orthognathic surgery. ,

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based three-dimensional superimposition techniques enable reliable quantification of condylar changes; however, findings vary due to differences in segmentation, registration, and analysis protocols. , Lack of standardisation remains a major limitation. Accurate condylar segmentation is essential, as errors directly affect measurements. Deep learning–based methods provide improved reproducibility compared with manual approaches.

The aim of this study is to evaluate condylar changes following mandibular setback surgery using a fully automated, end-to-end CBCT-based workflow. By integrating deep learning–based segmentation, standardised registration, and multiple volumetric and surface-based analysis metrics, this study seeks to provide a reproducible and operator-independent framework for three-dimensional quantification of condylar remodelling in skeletal Class III patients. It may also be considered a proof-of-concept investigation demonstrating the feasibility and potential clinical applicability of a fully automated deep learning–based CBCT workflow for the assessment of condylar remodelling.

Materıal and methods

This study was approved by the Sivas Cumhuriyet University Health-Sciences Research Ethics Committee under approval number 25_11_20_73. The retrospective data used in the study were anonymised, and no additional data or radiographic images were obtained from patients specifically for the study.

Study population

The study included skeletal Class III patients treated at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayıs University. All patients underwent isolated mandibular setback surgery without concomitant maxillary osteotomy. This approach was intentionally adopted to ensure a homogeneous study population and to eliminate potential confounding effects associated with bimaxillary procedures. All patients underwent presurgical orthodontic treatment, and a surgery-first protocol was not applied. Preoperative CBCT scans were obtained approximately one week prior to surgery, and postoperative CBCT imaging was performed 12–18 months after surgery to allow sufficient time for condylar remodelling to occur. No cases of progressive condylar resorption or clinically evident relapse or TMJ symptoms were observed during the follow-up period.

Artificial ıntelligence model development stages

An end-to-end Python-based workflow was developed to automatically analyse condylar changes after mandibular setback surgery ( Fig. 1 ). Preoperative and postoperative CBCT datasets were imported in DICOM format, anonymised, quality-checked, and converted to a Neuroimaging Informantics Technology Initiative (NıfTI) format for standardised processing.

Fig. 1

Schematic overview of the fully automated end-to-end cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based workflow for three-dimensional quantification of condylar changes following mandibular setback surgery.

Data annotation

A total of 350 CBCT scans obtained from the Sivas Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry were used to train the deep learning segmentation model. Manual annotations were performed by two experienced researchers using 3D Slicer (v5.10.0).

Preprocessing and data standardisation

CBCT volumes were resampled to 0.3 mm isotropic resolution and standardised using intensity normalisation and region of interest (ROI)-based cropping. Data were split into training, validation, and test sets in a patient-wise basis.

Segmentation model: mandible and condyle segmentation using nnU-Net v2

Segmentation was performed using nnU-Net v2, a self-configuring deep learning framework implemented on a PyTorch platform with CUDA-enabled GPU acceleration. A two-stage segmentation strategy was adopted: initial segmentation of the mandible to establish a stable anatomical reference and ROI, followed by isolation and segmentation of the condylar region from the mandibular mask.

Post-processing included the removal of small disconnected components, hole filling, and surface smoothing using connected-component analysis and morphological operations.

Preoperative–postoperative registration and cropping

Segmented preoperative and postoperative condylar surfaces were exported as stereolithographic (STL) files and rigidly registered using the iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm, aligning postoperative models to preoperative references with a six-degree-of-freedom transformation. Registration quality was assessed using transformation parameters and the ICP-derived root mean square error (RMSE).

After registration, automatic surface cropping was applied to standardise the region of interest. The inferior 35% and anterior 50% of the condyle were excluded, isolating the superior–posterior condylar head and ensuring consistent spatial coverage across time points.

Output generation

Point-based surface distance analysis was performed on registered condylar surfaces by computing the distance from each postoperative surface point to the nearest preoperative point. Maximum Hausdorff distance, 95th percentile Hausdorff distance (HD95), surface-based root mean square (RMS) distance, and ICP-derived RMSE were calculated to assess surface correspondence. , Volumetric parameters, including preoperative and postoperative volumes, appositional and resorptive volumes, and net volume change, were calculated using a voxel-based approach. In addition to absolute volumetric differences (mm 3), relative volume change (%) was calculated to improve clinical interpretability, using the following formula:

Volume p e r c e n t a g e c h a n g e ( % ) = [ ( p o s t o p e r a t i v e v o l u m e – p r e o p e r a t i v e v o l u m e ) / p r e o p e r a t i v e v o l u m e ] × 100

Segmentation overlap was evaluated using the Dice similarity coefficient and Jaccard index. All results were summarised per patient and exported in tabular format, with automated PDF reports generated.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using JASP software version 0.19.1.0 (JASP Team), with statistical significance set at α = 0.05. Descriptive data are expressed as mean (SD), with all values rounded to two decimal places.

Paired samples t-tests compared left and right condylar changes within patients according to rotation direction. One-way ANOVA assessed the effect of rotation direction on condylar morphometric changes and surface-based metrics. ANCOVA models were used to control for preoperative morphometric variables and sex when appropriate, with Bonferroni-corrected post hoc tests applied for multiple comparisons.

Dice, Jaccard, Hausdorff distance, HD95, and ICP-based RMSE values were compared across rotation groups using one-way ANOVA. Pearson correlation analyses evaluated associations between condylar volume changes, mandibular movement magnitude, and preoperative morphometric measurements, stratified by rotation direction.

Results

A total of 100 condyles from 50 skeletal Class III patients were analysed. Fifteen patients showed right mandibular rotation, 17 left rotation, and 18 no rotation. Regional patterns of condylar surface changes are illustrated in Supplementary Material 1 .

Segmentation performance was high (Dice: mandible 0.98, condyle 0.99). Descriptive data are presented in Table 1 .

Table 1

Descriptive statistics of demographic characteristics, preoperative and postoperative condylar morphometric measurements, and surface-based superimposition metrics according to rotation and condylar side.

Parameter Condylar side Rotation side
Right
(n = 15)
Left
(n = 17)
No rotation
(n = 18)
Age (years) 24.3 (2.19) 24.7 (3.04) 23.3 (2.80)
Gender:
Female 7 11 10
Male 8 6 8
Preop volume (mm 3) Left 237.83 (37.84) 226.29 (21.86) 212.30 (32.87)
Right 234.66 (41.16) 229.41 (25.48) 221.83 (35.31)
Postop volume (mm 3) Left 225.55 (33.29) 224.85 (19.98) 212.27 (32.62)
Right 231.09 (33.22) 217.91 (27.02) 220.88 (38.84)
Volume difference (mm 3) Left −12.28 (6.19) −1.45 (12.00) −0.030 (11.13)
Right −3.24 (12.23) −11.29 (10.73) −0.953 (12.57)
Volume difference (%) Left −5.16 −0.64 −0.01
Right −1.38 −4.92 −0.43
Preop width (mm) Left 19.34 (1.78) 19.76 (1.75) 20.03 (2.13)
Right 20.11 (4.77) 20.06 (2.44) 20.91 (6.80)
Postop width (mm) Left 19.68 (2.17) 19.99 (2.09) 18.58 (2.45)
Right 20.99 (3.74) 20.23 (2.61) 18.37 (2.59)
Width difference (mm) Left 0.34 (2.03) 0.24 (1.91) −1.44 (2.99)
Right 0.88 (3.08) 0.18 (0.41) −2.54 (7.96)
Preop height (mm) Left 24.37 (2.22) 24.11 (2.11) 23.80 (3.27)
Right 22.48 (4.97) 24.05 (2.74) 25.09 (4.65)
Postop height (mm) Left 24.41 (0.79) 23.33 (2.77) 24.73 (1.73)
Right 23.65 (2.27) 23.41 (2.40) 25.25 (1.69)
Height difference (mm) Left 0.04 (2.02) −0.79 (1.81) 0.93 (3.00)
Right 1.17 (5.25) −0.64 (1.63) 0.16 (5.01)
Superimposition metrics:
Dice Left 0.14 (0.031) 0.10 (0.05) 0.07 (0.04)
Right 0.12 (0.028) 0.12 (0.04) 0.07 (0.04)
Jaccard Left 0.08 (0.018) 0.06 (0.03) 0.04 (0.02)
Right 0.06 (0.016) 0.06 (0.02) 0.04 (0.02)
Hausdorff (mm) Left 2.53 (1.198) 2.67 (1.32) 3.23 (1.78)
Right 2.80 (1.024) 2.16 (1.41) 4.01 (2.81)
HD95 (mm) Left 0.45 (0.228) 0.74 (0.46) 1.18 (1.05)
Right 0.62 (0.559) 0.70 (0.62) 1.52 (1.63)
ICP RMSE (mm) Left 0.29 (0.128) 0.388 (0.22) 0.63 (0.51)
Right 0.35 (0.183) 0.33 (0.23) 0.78 (0.77)
Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free dental videos. Join our Telegram channel

Jul 12, 2026 | Posted by in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery | Comments Off on Deep learning–assisted cone-beam computed tomographic analysis of condylar changes after mandibular setback surgery

VIDEdental - Online dental courses

Get VIDEdental app for watching clinical videos