ArticleScientific reports2025
Age estimation using dental and hand-wrist radiography among a sample of Egyptian children.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Dental age estimation using open apices in Egyptian children from Mediterranean region.Oral radiology · 2026Article
- Dental Versus Skeletal Methods for Age Estimation in Growing Individuals: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
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
The current study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of Willems, Cameriere's and Greulich and Pyle method in age estimation among a sample of Egyptian children aged 8-16 years based on analysis of 140 panoramic dental X-ray and hand-wrist radiographs (70 girls and 70 boys). Using Willems method, the mean dental age underestimated chronological age by (0.20 ± 0.91 years) for boys and by (0.24 ± 1.33 year) for girls; these differences were not statistically significant. Also, Cameriere's method underestimated chronological age in both sexes by mean difference of (1.10 ± 1.22 year) in boys and (1.13 ± 1.31 year) in girls; these differences were statistically significant. Regarding Greulich and Pyle atlas, the mean of skeletal age was overestimated when compared to the real age in boys with a mean difference (0.04 ± 0.86 year). In girls; the age was underestimated by a mean difference of (0.15 ± 1.32 years) when compared to chronological age; these differences were not statistically significant. Comparing the two dental methods, the mean absolute error using Willems method was less than one year (0.94 and 0.96 years) in boys and girls respectively, while in Cameriere's method, it was more than one year in both groups. Moreover; the mean absolute error using Greulich and Pyle atlas was less than two years (1.02 and 1.38 years) in boys and girls respectively. Since Willems and the atlas methods were more accurate, the combination of both of them could be used for age estimation in the Egyptian population.
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.