ArticleClinical oral investigations2022
A large sample-sized study on dental development of children treated at the Central Dental Clinic (OCEx) of the Brazilian Army.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Forensic performance of dental age estimation methods at legal age thresholds in Latin America: a scoping review.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026Review
- Maxillary sinus classification for sex and age using 23 artificial intelligence architectures.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Applicability and validation of Franco, Willems and Willems II dental age estimation models in a population of Ceará, Brazil.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Literature reviews: typology and forensic applications.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Review
- Nicodemo's method on dental development: a cross-sectional study with 3,271 children and adolescents.Brazilian oral research · 2024Article
- Application of the London Atlas Software App 2nd edition for the radiographic assessment of dental development.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo test and compare the performance of two radiographic methods for dental age estimation on a large sample of Brazilian boys and girls. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe sample consisted of 1.990 panoramic radiographs of Brazilian children (age: 3-15.9 years) equally balanced based on sex. The sample was distributed into ten age categories, each with up to 200 children. Age estimation was performed with Willems' (2001) and Demirjian's (1973) methods. Estimated (EA) and chronological (CA) ages were compared. The performances of the methods were quantified based on sex and age category.
resultsThe overall differences between CA and EA for Willems' method in boys and girls were 0.06 and - 0.02, respectively. For Demirjian's method, the differences were 0.60 and 0.74, respectively. The overestimations of Demirjian's method were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Willems' method reached the best outcomes among children between 3 and 12 years, while Demirjian's best performances were between the ages of 7 and 10 years.
conclusionWillems' method led to differences between CA and AE that were acceptable for clinical and forensic practice. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Age estimation may guide clinical decisions based on treatment timing. Validating international tools is necessary to promote evidence-based practice and country-specific application. This study overcame the limitations of previous research to provide a more realistic perspective of the performance of age estimation methods in Brazilian children. Willems' method had a superior performance compared to Demirjian's method and led to outcomes that were better than most studies with the Brazilian population.
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.