Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30506219›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2019

Age assessment by Demirjian's development stages of the third molar: a systematic review.

Veslemøy Rolseth, Annhild Mosdøl, Pål Skage Dahlberg, Yunpeng Ding, Øyvind Bleka, Marianne Skjerven-Martinsen, Gyri Hval Straumann, Gerd Jorunn Møller Delaveris, Gunn Elisabeth Vist

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Comparison of the third molar maturity index (IInternational journal of legal medicine · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Veslemøy RolsethDepartment of Forensic Sciences, Oslo University Hospital, P.O. Box 4950, Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway. vesrol@ous-hf.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6240-7944
Annhild MosdølDivision for health services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Pål Skage DahlbergDepartment of Forensic Sciences, Oslo University Hospital, P.O. Box 4950, Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway.
Yunpeng DingDivision for health services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Øyvind BlekaDepartment of Forensic Sciences, Oslo University Hospital, P.O. Box 4950, Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway.
Marianne Skjerven-MartinsenDepartment of Forensic Sciences, Oslo University Hospital, P.O. Box 4950, Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway.
Gyri Hval StraumannDivision for health services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Gerd Jorunn Møller DelaverisDepartment of Forensic Sciences, Oslo University Hospital, P.O. Box 4950, Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway.
Gunn Elisabeth VistDivision for health services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesRadiographic evaluation of the wisdom teeth (third molar) formation is a widely used age assessment method for adolescents and young adults. This systematic review examines evidence on the agreement between Demirjian's development stages of the third molar and chronological age.

methodsWe searched four databases up until May 2016 for studies reporting Demirjian's stages of third molar and confirmed chronological age of healthy individuals aged 10-25 years. Heterogeneity test of the included studies was performed.

resultsWe included 21 studies from all continents except Australia, all published after 2005. The mean chronological age for Demirjian's stages varied considerably between studies. The results from most studies were affected by age mimicry bias. Only a few of the studies based their results on an unbiased age structure, which we argue as important to provide an adequate description of the method's ability to estimate age.

conclusionObserved study variation in the timing of Demirjian's development stages for third molars has often been interpreted as differences between populations and ethnicities. However, we consider age mimicry to be a dominant bias in these studies. Hence, the scientific evidence is insufficient to conclude whether such differences exist. KEY POINTS: • There is significant heterogeneity between studies evaluating age assessment by Demirjian's third molar development. • Most of the studies were subject to the selection bias age mimicry which can be a source of heterogeneity. • Presence of age mimicry bias makes it impossible to compare and combine results. These biased studies should not be applied as reference studies for age assessment.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAge Determination by TeethAge FactorsChildFemaleHumansMaleMolar, ThirdRadiographyYoung AdultAdolescentAge determination by teethMolar, thirdOdontogenesisYoung adult

Identifiers

PMID30506219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.