SynthesisInternational journal of legal medicine2022
Accuracy of forensic age estimation using cementum annulation and dentin translucency in adult: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of legal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dental age assessment: orthopantomogram-based comparison of traditional methods and artificial intelligence in the adult population.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Root Translucency for Age-at-Death Estimation in Adults: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Skull CT metadata for automatic bone age assessment by using three-dimensional deep learning framework.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Article
- The impact of multi-modality fusion and deep learning on adult age estimation based on bone mineral density.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Article
- Deep learning enables automatic adult age estimation based on CT reconstruction images of the costal cartilage.European radiology · 2023Article
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Identification of the living and the dead individual is essential in routine forensic dental examinations. Age determination can be of great value in forensic odontology, not only in identifying bodies but also in relation to crime. When subjects have extensive changes that external features provide no information, teeth are often the only means of identification. Several procedures for age-at-death estimation in adults have been introduced. Two of them, cementum annulation and dentin translucency, are frequently used as a single dental indicator. Cementum annulation refers to an alternating dark and light band; each pair of it represents 1 year. Meanwhile, dentin translucency is the other dental physiological process that begins in the second or third decade of life and progresses with age. There are still few studies that compared both methods and their accuracy in estimating adult age at death. Therefore, this study aims to test and compare cementum annulation and dentin translucency accuracy by performing a systematic search on five online databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Ebsco, ScienceDirect, and Wiley). All the research articles must be published in the last 10 years, and the full paper must be available in English. Out of the total 1178 literature, 28 studies were recruited for qualitative analysis and 23 studies for meta-analysis. The results show that dentin translucency age estimation is more accurate than the cementum annulation method in the entire population. It is recommended to use the cementum annulation method for younger adults (15-44 years) and the dentin translucency method for the older ones (≥ 45 years).
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.