ArticleThe Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology2021
Accuracy of four dental age estimation methods in determining the legal age threshold of 18 years among South Indian adolescents and young.
Article in The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic performance of Demirjian's third molar maturation stages G, G1, and H for identifying the 18-year age threshold: a sex-specific study.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Dental Versus Skeletal Methods for Age Estimation in Growing Individuals: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Radiographic evaluation of secondary dentin formation in lower premolars for forensic age diagnosis of 18 years in a sample of south Indian adolescents and young adults.The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology · 2023Article
- Testing the maturation and the radiographic visibility of the root pulp of mandibular third molars for predicting 21 years. A digital panoramic radiographic study in emerging adults of south Indian origin.The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy, specificity and sensitivity of four commonly used methods of dental age estimation in a sample of south Indian adolescents and young adults aged between 14 and 30 years, with an age threshold of 18 years, using receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) and the area under the curve (AUC). A total of 1070 orthopantomograms (535 males and 535 females) of adolescents and young adults of south Indian origin were collected retrospectively and interpreted. The effectiveness of each method was evaluated by using sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-) and AUC. Among all methods, I3M< 0.08 resulted in better values of AUC, Se and Sp which were 0.950, 91.5%, 97.8% and 0.950, 88.5% and 98.6% in males and females, respectively. For "stage H" of Demirjian's system, the AUC, Se and Sp were 0.940, 84.9%, 97.7% and 0.930, 79.9% and 98.5% in males and females, respectively. The use of the Olze et al "stage 1 (or higher)" root pulp visibility and "stage D" of third molar eruption were not recommended in the studied population due to the greater percentage of third molars with incomplete mineralization in younger age groups and impaction. Taking into account the values of Se, Sp, both positive and negative LRs, we recommend the use of the cut-off value of I3M< 0.08 to discriminate adults and minors in south Indian adolescents and young adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34999575PMC9343060W4206871450What 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.