SynthesisScientific reports2026
A systematic review and meta-analysis of Gustafson's six dental variables for age estimation in adults.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dental age estimation (DAE) by means of direct visualisation remains a fundamental tool in forensic odontology, particularly for Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) in resource-limited settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to calculate the pooled correlation coefficient between chronological age (CA) and six Gustafson-derived dental variables in modern adults. Following PRISMA guidelines, five databases were searched until June 2025, resulting in 27 included studies, with 19 utilized in a three-level random-effects meta-analysis. The overall weighted correlation between CA and Gustafson-derived variables was moderate (r = 0.67, [Formula: see text] = 0.93), though significant heterogeneity was observed with low certainty due to method variability. Subgroup analyses indicated that the six variables do not contribute equally to age prediction; transparency of the root gives the highest correlation (r = 0.75), while root resorption showed the lowest correlation (r = 0.28). Additionally, sectioned teeth showed a higher correlation than intact teeth, although this difference was not statistically significant. In conclusion, while direct visualisation of Gustafson-derived variables shows utility for DAE, high between-study heterogeneity and low certainty of evidence dictate cautious application and interpretation of the current results. Furthermore, although tooth sectioning may improve correlation, using destructive methods requires balancing potential analytical benefits against ethical and legal constraints.
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.