ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2026
Testing the accuracy of Cameriere's original and European formulae radiographic method of dental age estimation.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo test the accuracy of Cameriere's radiographic method of dental age estimation.
methodsThe sample was 661 archived dental radiographs of dental patients aged 4.0-15.9 years (310 females, 351 males). Dental age was calculated using Cameriere's original formula (Cameriere et al. 2006, Int J Legal Med, 120, 49) and European formula (Cameriere et al. 2007, Int J Legal Med, 121, 449); this measures apex width to tooth length of developing mandibular permanent teeth excluding third molars. The mean difference and absolute mean difference between dental and chronological ages were calculated and assessed using a t-test for females, males, pooled and by year group.
resultsFor the European formula, mean difference between dental and chronological ages was small for both females and males (0.04 years, SD 0.59 and 0.09 years, SD 0.66 respectively) but was significantly different in males (P < 0.05). Absolute mean difference values were 0.44 years in females and 0.48 years in males. All age categories from 6 to 13 for both sexes had mean difference and absolute mean difference values of less than six months. Age was overestimated by over one year in a large proportion of 4- and 5-year-olds. Mean difference was lower in the European formula (0.07 years) than the original formula (-0.26 years) possibly due to the larger sample size and age range for the European formula.
conclusionCameriere's method accurately estimates age for most of our sample but may be unsuitable for children younger than 6 years. The European formula is more accurate than the original formula.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42399498What 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.