ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025
Accuracy of the London Atlas and RP Atlas in age estimation of Southern Brazilians.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To assess the accuracy of the London Atlas and RP Atlas methods estimating age and diagnosing adulthood in a Southern Brazilian population. Material and Methods: A total of 1,099 panoramic radiographs from individuals aged 15.00-22.99 years were analyzed. The London Atlas and RP Atlas tools were used to estimate age based on the developmental stages of the upper and lower left third molars (teeth 28 and 38). Statistical analysis included Spearman's rank test, Bland-Altman plots, Lin's concordance coefficient, and ROC curves, with adulthood (>18 years) as the cutoff (p<0.05). Results: Both methods showed high accuracy, with the London Atlas exhibiting lower mean errors. Errors increased with age and were higher in females. The best adulthood cutoff for the London Atlas was 18.5 years for tooth 28 (78.5% accuracy) and 19.5 years for tooth 38 (80.0% accuracy). For the RP Atlas, the cutoff was 17 years for both teeth (80.8% and 80.0% accuracy, respectively). Both methods were suitable for age estimation and adulthood diagnosis, with the London Atlas tending to overestimate age - an advantage in legal contexts requiring caution. Conclusions: Validating age estimation methods in specific populations enhance accuracy, preventing errors when applying methods developed for other populations and ensuring suitability for the local context. Research that applies these methods can provide a foundation for adjustments to the Atlases and their application in diverse subpopulations, and even serve as the basis for the establishment of an international data repository.
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.