SynthesisInternational journal of legal medicine2025
Global lens of Willems' method for dental age estimation: where we are and where we are going - umbrella review.
Synthesis in International journal of legal medicine, 2025. 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
- Applicability and validation of Franco, Willems and Willems II dental age estimation models in a population of Ceará, Brazil.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Dental Age Estimation by Demirjian, Willems, and Cameriere Methods in Children with Familial Mediterranean Fever: A Case-Control Study.Children (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
This umbrella review aimed to evaluate the evidence behind the Willems method for dental age estimation and detect methodological limitations in the existing systematic reviews. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR), with the protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023487745). Seven databases, including grey literature sources, were searched (Medline/PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, SciELO, Web of Science, Open Grey and Open Access Theses and Dissertations). Systematic reviews of cross-sectional studies on the Willems method were included. Two calibrated reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, quality assessment (AMSTAR-2) and risk of bias (ROBIS). Five systematic reviews published between 2017 and 2022 were included. Combined sample sizes ranged from 9347 to 17,741 individuals aged 2.2 to 18 years. Meta-analyses reported minor overestimations in dental age, with differences varying by sex and ethnicity. However, significant methodological shortcomings were identified, such as lack of protocol registration, limited search strategies, and inadequate assessment of the risk of bias. All systematic reviews were rated as critically low quality and with a high risk of bias. The Willems method was deemed appropriate for dental age estimation by most studies, but methodological limitations of existing systematic reviews underscore the need for more rigorous research and improved standards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39954055What 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.