ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2024
Accuracy of the London Atlas to estimate the age of legal majority in a sample of the Amazon Regio.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Estimating the age of majority is a challenging task in forensic odontology, especially because the third molars are usually the only developing teeth between the ages of 16 and 21 years. The London Atlas emerged as an alternative to estimate age using dental development, eruption and deciduous root resorption as parameters. The method has performed well in young age categories, while its performance for age estimation via third molars has been disputed. The present study tested the performance of the London Atlas to estimate the age of legal majority in a sample of individuals from the Amazon Region. Material and Methods: The sample consisted of 1.256 panoramic radiographs of women (n = 694) and men (n = 562) between 16 and 22.9 years. The method was applied to the maxillary (#28) and mandibular (#38) left third molars. For comparative purposes, the sample was divided into seven age groups: 16├ 16.99; 17├ 17.99; 18├ 18.99; 19├ 19.99; 20├ 20.99; 21├ 21.99; and 22├ 22.99 years. Chronological and estimated ages were compared descriptively by means of mean absolute errors (MAE) and root mean squared errors (RMSE), as well as through Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and their area under the curve (AUC). Results: The MAE of the age estimates using tooth #28 was 1.76 years for females and 1.52 years for males. When the tooth #38 was used, the MAE for the females and males were 1.68 and 1.51 years, respectively. The MAE and RMSE increased in ascending order between age categories. Tooth #28 led to 74% of correct classifications around the age of legal majority, while tooth #38 reached 77%. The area under the curve was 0.75 for tooth #28 and 0.73 for tooth #38. Conclusions: The London Atlas should be used carefully to estimate the age of legal majority and not as a single method when the age threshold is 18 years.
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.