# DeAPIR: Efficient and Enhanced Dental Arch-Guided Panoramic Image Reconstruction from CBCT Data
## 4 Conclusions  
In this article, we address critical issues in surgical planning procedures in dentistry, including frequent patient exposure to radiation, low contrast, and misaligned view angles. We propose a novel method for generating panoramic images from CBCT data. Existing approaches often encounter challenges related to contrast and accuracy in dental arch alignment, especially in the presence of metal artifacts. Our innovative solution utilizes teeth localization, morphological processing, and quadratic approximation to enhance the precision of dental arch extraction, while also incorporating TMJ bones into the panoramic view. Through maximum intensity projections and contrast normalization, we significantly improve image quality. Comparative results with state-of-the-art systems highlight the superiority of our method, offering clearer tooth contours, faster processing times, and a more comprehensive panoramic view. This research lays the foundation for improved diagnostic and treatment planning tools in dental care.  
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. F.: investigation, methodology, validation, visualization, write-up, formal analysis, validation, writing review & editing; S.-Y.M.: conceptualization, writing review & editing, supervision, project administration, funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was funded by Chosun University, 2023.  
The dataset produced and examined during this research cannot be accessed publicly because of licensing restrictions specific to this study. However, they can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Method** & **Arch** & **Fitting** & **Morphological** & **Projection** & **Enhancement** \\ \hline BlueSky [24] & No & No & No & Mean & No \\ \hline OpenInventor [25] & No & No & Yes & Mean & No \\ \hline Bezier Optimization [7] & Yes & Bezier Curve & Yes & Mean & No \\ \hline MIP based [26] & Yes & No & No & Maximum & No \\ \hline Arch Fitting [27] & Yes & Polynomial & No & Maximum & No \\ \hline Arch-MIP [4] & Yes & No & No & Maximum & No \\ \hline Proposed & Yes & Quadratic & Yes & Maximum & Contrast Stretching \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Comparison of proposed methodology with the literature works.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline \hline
**Method** & **Limitations** & **Pros** \\ \hline BlueSky [24] & TMJ Missing, & Fast \\  & Blurriness & & \\ \hline OpenInventor [25] & Blur results and high & \\  & computational time & TMJ available \\ \hline Bezier Optimization [7] & Blurry Results, & Fast \\  & Misalignment, contour missing & \\ \hline MIP based [26] & Blurry Results, & \\  & high computation time & Arch available \\ \hline Arch Fitting [27] & Not aligned, Blur and contour missing & \\ \hline Arch-MIP [4] & Low resolution, blur, & \\  & and not aligned & TMJ and Arch exist and fast \\ \hline Proposed & – & & Fast, TMJ available, \\  & & CBCT-aligned, Enhanced, \\  & & Clear Contours \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Comparison with the literature in terms of pros and cons.