ArticleBMC oral health2026
Forensic dental age estimation in a Pakistani population: validation of Atlas methods and development of a population-specific reference model.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
backgroundAccurate age estimation is essential in forensic and clinical contexts, particularly where birth records are unavailable. Dental development assessed through radiographic calcification is considered a reliable indicator. However, atlas-based methods have demonstrated variable accuracy across populations. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and agreement of the Schour and Massler chart and the London Atlas, and to develop a population-specific dental development scheme for a Pakistani cohort.
methodsA cross-sectional forensic validation study was conducted using 700 digital panoramic radiographs of individuals aged 4.0-17.9 years, stratified by age and sex. Dental age was estimated using both methods and compared with the chronological age. The analyses included paired t-tests, correlation, intraclass correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman analysis, and linear regression. The predictive performance was assessed using the mean absolute error and proportions within ± 1 and ± 2 years.
resultsBoth methods demonstrated strong correlations (r > 0.90) and high ICCs (> 0.85). The London Atlas showed lower mean bias (~ 0.2-0.4 years), narrower limits of agreement (± 1.5-2.0 years), and higher predictive accuracy (overall R² = 0.997; sex-stratified subgroup range: R² = 0.92-0.95) than the Schour and Massler method (overall R² = 0.982; sex-stratified subgroup range: R² = 0.85-0.90). Accuracy within ± 1 year was higher for the London Atlas (> 75%) compared with Schour and Massler (< 65%), while both exceeded 90% within ± 2 years. Population-specific analyses revealed a delay in early dental development.
conclusionsThe London Atlas demonstrated superior agreement and predictive performance; however, population-specific variations limit its universal applicability. The newly developed Pak Atlas provides a more accurate reference for forensic age estimation in the Pakistani population, with direct relevance to medico-legal age assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.