ArticleScientific reports2021
Comparison of two established 2D staging techniques to their appliance in 3D cone beam computer-tomography for dental age estimation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dental age assessment: A proposal for refining and extending the Demirjian stages for third molar mineralization evaluation.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluating the Nolla Method for Dental Age Estimation in Children from Northwestern Romania.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Review
- Accuracy of Different Dental Age Estimation Methods Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography: A Comparative Study.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2024Article
- Dental age assessment in the living: a comparison of two common stage classifications for assessing radiographic visibility of the root canals in mandibular third molars.International journal of legal medicine · 2024Article
- Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms inInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For medicolegal purposes, orthodontic or orthognathic treatment various stomatological staging technique for age estimation with appliance of conventional radiographic images have been published. It remains uninvestigated if cone beam computer-tomography delivers comparable staging results to the conventional radiographic stages of third molar analysis. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of 312 patients aged 13-21 years. Dental age estimation staging technique, introduced by Nolla and Demirjian, were applied on the left lower third molar imaged by conventional panoramic radiographs and cone beam computer-tomography. It was investigated if 2D and 3D imaging presented different staging results for dental age estimation. In 21% the Demirjian's staging differed by a single stage between 2 and 3D images. The greatest congruence (87%) between 2 and 3D images was revealed for stage 7 (G). In contrary, stage 5 (E) presented the lowest level of congruence with 47.4%. The categorization of Nolla revealed divergences in staging for than two categorical variables in Nolla's stages 3, 4, 5 and 6. In general, the analysis of the data displayed the divergence for Nolla's stages 4-8. The staging results for 2D and 3D imaging in accordance to the rules of Nolla and Demirjian showed significant differences. Individuals of 18 years may present immature third molars, thus merely an immature third molar cannot reject legal majority. Nolla's and Demirjian's 2D and 3D imaging present significantly different staging results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.