ArticleCurrent health sciences journal
Accuracy of the Chaillet's Method for Assessing the Age in Subadults. A Meta-Analysis.
Article in Current health sciences journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence of Age Estimation Procedures in Forensic Dentistry: Results from an Umbrella Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Assessing the dental development plays a key role in forensic dentistry. Dental age based on stages of teeth mineralization can be assessed by using different methods, and is especially useful in subadults. Chaillet's method was developed based on the Demirijan's method. In this study, we aimed to study the applicability of Chaillet's method in subadults. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe performed systematic reviews and meta-analysis of observational studies published in English using the following databases Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase and Scopus, with a timeframe between 2013 and 2019.
resultsThe difference between chronological age and dental age was calculated separately, for each gender. In girls, the method underestimated the age with an average difference between dental and chronological of 0.83 years (CI= [-1.34; -0.31]), with significant heterogeneity and publication bias. In boys, the method underestimated the age with an average difference between dental and chronological of 0.64 years (CI= [-1.28; 0.01)], with significant heterogeneity and publication bias. Chaillet's method showed an advanced dental maturity in European boys by 0.35 years [-0.85; 1.55], while it underestimated the age in South Asian boys by -1.03 (CI= [-1.60; -0.46]). For girls this method showed a delayed dental development for both regions, with a rather smaller difference for Europeans of -0.06 years (CI= [0.91; 0,78]) compared to South Asian girls: -1.19 years (CI= [-1.86; -0.51.
conclusionDental age estimation provided by the Chaillet's method showed an age overestimation in both genders, in most studies geographic groups.
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.