ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Geometric morphometric analysis of mandibular morphology for age classification in Indonesian adolescents and adults.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Accurate age estimation plays a crucial role in medicolegal investigations, particularly in determining whether an individual has reached the age of majority for criminal responsibility, which is legally defined as 18 years in Indonesia. Geometric morphometric (GM) analysis of the mandible enables the evaluation of shape variability in two-dimensional (2D) data with potential applications in categorizing individual ages. Methods: 300 digital panoramic radiographs were obtained from Airlangga University Dental Hospital in Surabaya and divided into adolescent (15.0-17.9 years) and adult (18.0-21.0 years) age groups. Each sample was assigned 27 anatomical landmarks and analyzed using MorphoJ software with generalized Procrustes analysis (GPA) and principal component analysis (PCA), while statistical evaluation included Procrustes analysis of variance (ANOVA) and discriminant function analysis (DFA). Results: GM analysis revealed statistically significant differences in mandibular morphology between adolescents and adults. However, Procrustes ANOVA did not show significant differences in mandibular size between the age groups. Variable mandibular morphology patterns were identified at the incisor point, mental foramen, gonion, and mandibular notch. The geometric morphometric method successfully identified the mandibular morphologies specific to each group, achieving 67 % and 65 % accuracy for the adult and adolescent groups, respectively. Conclusion: These findings underscore the potential of GM analysis of mandibular morphology for classifying individuals as adolescents or 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.