ArticleClinical oral investigations2022
Dental age estimation with fewer than mandibular seven teeth: An accuracy study of Bedek models in Turkish children.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Which method can be used to assess chronologic age in children?BMC oral health · 2025Article
- An investigation of the validity of the Bedek models and Cameriere-European formula used in dental age prediction in Turkish children.BMC oral health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOne or more missing teeth, such as hypodontia, make it difficult to obtain accurate results in age estimation methods. This paper aims to test the accuracy of the models developed by Bedek et al. that can estimate age with fewer than seven teeth for Turkish children. MATERIALS AND
methodsPanoramic radiographs of 1118 children (540 girls and 578 boys) aged between 6 and 16 years were evaluated using the Willems method and Bedek models for the entire sample and for different ages and sexes. Differences between dental age (DA) and chronological age (CA) calculated for all methods for each sex and all age groups were analyzed the paired sample t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test. The accuracy of the DA estimation methods was determined by the proximity of DA to CA by calculating mean absolute error (MAE).
resultsWhile all Bedek models underestimated CA by 0.2 to 0.1 years, the Willems method overestimated CA by 0.3 years. DA-CA difference in the total sample and girls was statistically significant in all methods. In the total sample, the seven- and four-teeth models had the lowest MAE, while the one-tooth model had the highest MAE.
conclusionsSeven- and four-teeth models were the most suitable for age estimation, and all models except the one-tooth model were found to be more accurate than the Willems method in northwestern Turkish children. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Especially in children with hypodontia, it may be possible to estimate DA with the use of Bedek models.
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.