Detection is solved, delineation is not: what governs tooth segmentation on panoramic radiographs

Muhammad Rehan, Moaz Amjad, Syed Danial Ahmed, Mariam Adnan, Haider Ali

Automatic tooth segmentation and FDI numbering on panoramic radiographs underpins computer-assisted dental diagnosis, yet which factors govern performance remains unclear. We assemble a corpus of 1,422 panoramic radiographs containing 42,142 expert-delineated tooth polygons across the 32-class FDI taxonomy, annotated by 30 dental practitioners and independently reviewed by two others, and use it to isolate input resolution, architecture and anatomical priors under a single evaluation protocol. First, resolution dominates: across a controlled 640/1024/1280 ablation, mask mAP50-95 rises 0.656 -> 0.710 -> 0.717 while mAP50 stays flat at ~0.982. Both gains are significant under a paired bootstrap over images (p < 0.001, p = 0.024); neither mAP50 change is distinguishable from zero. Added resolution buys boundary precision, not detection. Second, architecture is nearly irrelevant in-domain: a query-based transformer with 2.1x the parameters is statistically equivalent to a one-stage detector (95% CI [-0.0064, +0.0064]), only marginally better under domain shift, 5.5x slower on CPU and not executable under standard ONNX runtimes. Third, three targeted interventions fail: a LoRA-adapted…