Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36131089›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2022

The Cameriere, Haavikko, Demirjian, and Willems methods for the assessment of dental age in Croatian children.

Hrvoje Brkić, Ivan Galić, Marin Vodanović, Jelena Dumančić, Fuad Mehdi, Sandra Anić Milošević

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Hrvoje BrkićDepartment of Dental Anthropology and Chair of Forensic Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Ivan GalićDepartment of Oral Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Split, Split, Croatia. igalic@mefst.hr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0387-9535
Marin VodanovićDepartment of Dental Anthropology and Chair of Forensic Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Jelena DumančićDepartment of Dental Anthropology and Chair of Forensic Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Fuad MehdiDepartment of Oral Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Split, Split, Croatia.
Sandra Anić MiloševićDepartment of Orthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThis study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and precision of the Cameriere European formula, Demirjian, Haavikko, and Willems methods for estimating dental age in a sample of children with permanent dentition in Croatia. MATERIAL AND

methodsThe study consisted of a sample of 1576 panoramic radiographs; a sub-sample of 84 OPGs, in which all first seven mandibular teeth were maturated, was excluded from the study. A final sample of 1492 (704 males and 788 females) aged 6.0 to 13.9 years was evaluated. Seven mandibular teeth from the left side of the mandible were analyzed, and dental age (DA) was determined by the Cameriere European formula, Demirjian method from 1976, Haavikko, and Willems methods and compared to chronological age (CA). In addition, the mean age difference (DA-CA), the mean absolute error (MAE) between dental and chronological age, the percentage of the individuals of dental age within ± 0.25 to ± 2 years of chronological age, and intra-observer and inter-observer statistics were calculated.

resultsThe Cameriere European formula estimated the best dental age compared to the chronological age; the mean underestimation was - 0.4 years for both sexes, Haavikko underestimated by - 0.17 years, while Demirjian and Willems overestimated by 1.02 years and 0.48 years, respectively. The most significant difference showed the Demirjian method in 11-year-old and 12-year-old females. The MAE were 0.50 years, 1.01 years, 0.61 years, and 0.78 years in males and 0.51 years, 1.18 years, 0.61 years, and 0.70 years in females for the Cameriere European formula, Haavikko, Willems, and Demirjian methods, respectively. Furthermore, the Cameriere European formula showed the highest proportions of individuals with DA within ± 0.5 year difference of the CA, 61.5% in males and 59.6% in females. In addition, the Cameriere method showed the best intra-observer and inter-observer agreements.

conclusionsAlthough the Demirjian method was used previously in Croatian children for legal, medical, and clinical purposes, the Cameriere European formula, Haavikko, and Willems were more accurate in the tested sample. According to our findings, the Cameriere European formula showed the best accuracy and precision in dental age assessment in Croatian children following Haavikko, and we recommend it as the method of the first choice in forensic and clinical analyses.

Indexed as

Age Determination by TeethToothChildCroatiaFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleRadiography, PanoramicTooth CalcificationAge assessmentAnthropologyCameriere European formulaDemirjian and GoldsteinDental maturityForensic dentistryHaavikkoWillems

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.