ArticleThe Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology2024
Age estimation at 18-year threshold: comparing Demirjian and Cameriere's methods for Thais.
Article in The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Analysis of Third Molar Segmentation Performance Across Dental Developmental Stages and the 18-Year Age Threshold Using Deep Learning Models.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Third molar maturity on panoramic radiographs as an indicator of the 18-year threshold: a pilot cases study.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026Article
- Assessment of the coming of age using the Caggiano method based on Demirijian stages and the Cameriere method applied to third molars in a Brazilian population.The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology · 2026Article
- Demirjian's and Cameriere's methods for estimating the 18-year legal age threshold using third molar maturity in a Northern Thai population.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to compare the accuracy of Demirjian's and Cameriere's methods in determining adult age at the 18-year threshold using mandibular third molars in the Thai population. Panoramic radiograph images of 504 healthy subjects aged between 14 and 23 years were retrospectively collected. The developmental stages of mandibular third molars were evaluated using Demirjian's method, while the maturity index of mandibular third molars (I3M) was assessed using Cameriere's method. Comparing the development of the left and right mandibular third molars, slight differences were observed: the left side developed 0.06 stages faster (p = 0.01) and had an I3M 0.01 higher (p < 0.01). For the 18-year age threshold, Demirjian's Stage H demonstrated a specificity of 1.00 for both sexes on the left mandibular third molar, and 0.97 for males and 1.00 for females on the right. I3M < 0.08 yielded specificities of 0.84 for males and 0.93 for females on the left, and 0.82 for males and 0.91 for females on the right. Reducing the cut-off to I3M < 0.02 improved specificity to 1.00 for both sexes on the left side, and 0.96 for males and 1.00 for females on the right. Notably, using Demirjian's Stage H and I3M < 0.02, the probability of being over 18 years was 1.00 for females on both sides, and 0.96 for males on the left and 1.00 on the right. Our study recommends using an I3M cutoff of <0.02 for adult age assessment in the Thai population, as it achieves high specificity comparable to Demirjian's Stage H, with effective differentiation of adults.
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.