ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2026
Evaluation of Demirjian's and modified Demirjian staging chart by Solari and Abramovitch employing third molars: a comparative cross-sectional study.
Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnostic performance of Demirjian's third molar maturation stages G, G1, and H for identifying the 18-year age threshold: a sex-specific study.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
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
backgroundAscertaining the maturation status of third molars is crucial for dental age estimation (DAE). This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of the DAE criteria proposed by Demirjian et al. (DEM method) with the modification proposed by Solari and Abramovitch (S&A method).
methodsIn this retrospective, cross-sectional study, the maturation status of 1,351 third molars from 383 subjects was assessed using panoramic radiographs of individuals aged 7–25 years. The receiver operator characteristic curve was plotted to compare the effectiveness of the two methods, along with sensitivity and specificity, to analyze the efficacy of the individual stages for estimating ages 16 and 18.
resultsWhen considering all four third molars together, the area under the curve (AUC) was significantly greater for the S&A method. When evaluating third molars individually, only tooth 48 showed a significant difference in the AUCs of the two methods (0.005; p = 0.045) for 18 years. The specificity for stages F1 (96.99%, 95% CI: 95.09%, 98.31%) and G1 (96.29%, 95% CI: 94.72%, 97.50%) of the S&A method was higher than that for stages F (91.78%, 95% CI: 89.02, 94.04) and G (94.63%, 95% CI: 92.8, 96.10) of the DEM method for ages 16 and 18, respectively. Stages F1 (96.7%) and G1 (85.9%) of the S&A method had a higher probability of an individual being ≥ 16 and ≥ 18 years, respectively.
conclusionBoth methods were effective in estimating age; however, the S&A method demonstrated greater specificity. Mandibular third molars were more effective than combined third molars and maxillary third molars. Both methods were more accurate in males than in females.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41817656What 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.