ArticleThe Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology2025
Evaluation of dental and skeletal age among unilateral cleft lip and palate patients in an eastern Indian population.
Article in The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnilateral cleft lip and palate affects dental and skeletal maturation, leading to delays that impact treatment planning and forensic age estimation. Understanding the correlation between dental age, skeletal age, and chronological age is essential for clinical and medico-legal applications.
aimTo evaluate and compare dental and skeletal age in non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate patients with an age- and gender-matched non-cleft control group. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis cross-sectional study included 216 individuals (108 unilateral cleft lip and palate cases and 108 controls), aged 7 to 18 years. Dental age was assessed using Acharya's modified Demirjian method on panoramic radiographs, while skeletal age was estimated using the Greulich and Pyle Atlas from left hand-wrist radiographs. Statistical analyses were conducted to compare dental age, skeletal age, and chronological age.
resultsSkeletal age was more delayed than dental age, with males experiencing greater delays than females. Males had a mean skeletal delay of 0.92 years (p < 0.001), and females had a delay of 0.90 years (p < 0.001). Dental age delay was 0.28 years in males (p = 0.016) and 0.21 years in females (p = 0.150, not significant). The most significant delays were observed between ages 10 to 14 years, with a peak skeletal delay of 1.04 years at age 10 in females (p < 0.001).
conclusionSkeletal age is more delayed than dental age, with males experiencing greater delays. These findings highlight the need for individualized treatment planning and reinforce the importance of cleft-specific age estimation methods in forensic and legal contexts. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Accurate assessment of skeletal and dental age is essential for timely orthodontic and surgical interventions and for preventing age misclassification in forensic applications.
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.