ArticleActa odontologica Scandinavica2024
Comparison of accuracy of different dental age estimation methods in Finnish and Turkish populations.
Article in Acta odontologica Scandinavica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Panoramic radiograph-based dental age estimation in children and adolescents using multi-tooth methods: a scoping review of methods used and reported accuracy (2020-2025).BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Is chronological age predictable on panoramic images using the Demirjian method on third molars? Insights from a Turkish population-based study.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2026Article
- An Evaluation of Four Radiological Methods for Dental Age Estimation in the Montenegrin Population.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
objectiveThe aims of this study were to assess the accuracy of Cameriere's and Demirjian's methods in Finnish children, and compare the findings with those of the Turkish children according to dental age. MATERIAL AND
methodsDental panoramic tomography (DPT) of children (482 Finnish, 423 Turkish) aged between 5 and 15 years were evaluated. Comparison of mean difference between estimated and chronological age was evaluated. The difference between two means was analysed using paired t-test at 95% confidence interval (CI). Pearson correlation coefficients were used to estimate the correlation between chronological and estimated ages. Results: Demirjian's method resulted in overestimation in all age groups except for 8-year-old girls. Dental age, however, was found to be underestimated with Cameriere's method in all age groups but 6-year-old girls and boys. In Northern Finnish children, Demirjian's method was more suitable for boys while Cameriere's method led to better estimation in girls. When comparing Finnish and Turkish children, differences between dental ages and chronological ages differed significantly in 10-year-old boys and 8-year-old girls with both methods. Conclusion: Dental age of Turkish children seems higher than that of Finnish children. There is a significant difference between chronological and dental ages in both populations assessed by both methods.
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.