ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Age Estimation in 0-8-Year-Old Children in France: Comparison of One Skeletal and Five Dental Methods.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bone age and dental age to assess criminal responsibility: Part II.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Article
- Post-Slaughter Age Classification and Sex Determination in Deboned Beef Using Lipofuscin Autofluorescence and Amelogenin Gene Analysis.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Sex Estimation Through Orbital Measurements: A Machine Learning Approach for Forensic Science.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Validation of the Greulich and Pyle Atlas for Radiological Bone Age Assessments in a Pediatric Population from the Canary Islands.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Accuracy of the third molar maturity index (I3M) for diagnosing the legal majority of young southern Brazilians.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
- Liability and Medico-Legal Implications in Estimating the Likelihood of Having Attained 14 Years of Age in Pediatric Clinical Practice: A Pilot Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Precision and Accuracy of Radiological Bone Age Assessment in Children among Different Ethnic Groups: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Age estimation in juveniles is a critical procedure in judicial cases for verification of imputability or for civil reasons when adopting children. Several methods based both on skeletal and dental growth have been performed and applied on different populations; nevertheless, few articles have compared different methods in order to test their reliability in different conditions and age ranges, and this is a clear obstacle in the creation of common guidelines for age estimation in the living. A comparison of five dental methods (Anderson, Ubelaker, Schour and Massler, Gustafson and Koch, Demirjian) and one skeletal method (Greulich a Pyle atlas) was performed on a population of 94 children aged between 0 and 8 years. Results showed that, whereas under 2 years all the methods have the same inaccuracy, over 2 years the diagram methods, such as Schour and Massler and Ubelaker's revised one, have a lower error range than the most frequently used Greulich and Pyle atlas and Demirjian method. Schour and Massler, Gustafson and Koch, and Ubelaker methods showed, respectively, a mean error amounting to 0.40, 0.53, and 0.56 years versus the 0.74 and 0.88 years given by Demirjian and the Greulich and Pyle atlas. An in-depth analysis of the potential of several methods is necessary in order to reach a higher adherence of age estimation with the complexity of growth dynamics.
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.