Table 1. Table of included studies.
| Article | Type of study: Brief details | Details of participants and methods used | Main findings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amberkova et al. 2014 [50] |
Cross-sectional comparative: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth. Study setting: Macedonia | 966 children aged 6–13 analyzed using Willems and Demirjian methods | Willems method most accurate; Demirjian method overestimated chronological age |
| Asab et al. 2011 [51] | Cross-sectional: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth. Study setting: Malaysia | 905 children aged 6–16 analyzed using Demirjian method | Demirjian method less accurate by overestimating chronological age |
| Bagherpour et al. 2010 [52] |
Cross-sectional. Study setting: Iran | 311 boys and girls analyzed using Demirjian method | Demirjian method appropriate only for children 9–13 years |
| Caneiro et al. 2015 [53] | Cross-sectional retrospective: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth. Study setting: Portugal | 564 children analyzed using Demirjian method | Demirjian method not useful in predicting chronological age. Overestimation of dental age |
| Cavric et al. 2016 [54] | Cross-sectional retrospective: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth. Study setting: Botswana | 1760 children aged 6–23 analyzed using Demirjian method | Demirjian method not useful in predicting chronological age. |
| Djukic et al. 2013 [55] | Cross-sectional retrospective: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth. Study setting: Serbia | 686 children aged 4–15 analyzed using Demirjian and Willems methods | Demirjian method overestimated chronological age. Willems method provided better accuracy |
| El Bakary et al. 2010 [42] |
Cross-sectional: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth. Study setting: India | 286 children aged 5–16 analyzed using Willems and Cameriere methods | Willems method predicts better than Cameriere method. Hence could be used in Egyptian population |
| Erdem et al. 2013 [56] | Cross-sectional retrospective: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth. Study setting: NW Turkey | 425 children aged 7–13 analyzed using Demirjian method | Demirjian method overestimated chronological age and hence not suitable for estimating age |
| Feijóo et al. 2012 [57] | Cross-sectional retrospective: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth. Study setting: Spain | 1010 children 2–16 analyzed using Demirjian method | Demirjian method overestimated chronological age |
| Flood et al. 2013 [58] | Cross-sectional retrospective: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth used. Study setting: Australia | 504 children analyzed using the 4 Demirjian methods | All methods not accurate in predicting chronological age. |
| Galic et al. 2011 [59] | Cross-sectional comparative: Setting: Bosnia-Herzegovina | 1089 children analyzed using Cameriere. Haavikko and Willems methods | Willems method overestimated chronological age hence not accurate |
| Hegde et al. 2016 [60] | Cross-sectional observational: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth. Study setting: India | 1200 children aged 5–15 analyzed using Willems I and Willems 2 methods | Willems 1method predicted age of boys more accurately |
| Ifesanya et al. 2012 [61] | Cross-sectional retrospective: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth used. Study setting: Nigeria | 124 children aged 4–16 analyzed using Demirjian method | Demirjian method overestimated chronological age |
| Javadinejad et al. 2013 [62] |
Cross-sectional retrospective: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth. Study setting: Iran | 537 children aged 3.9–14 analyzed using Demirjian, Willems, Cameriere and Smith methods | Demirjian and Willems methods overestimated chronological age and hence less accurate |
| Khoja, Fida and Shaikh 2015 [63] | Cross-sectional retrospective: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth used. Study setting: Pakistan | 403 children analyzed using Demirjian, Willems and Nolla methods | Willems method better predicts chronological age |
| Kirzioglu and Ceyhan 2012 [64] | Cross-sectional retrospective: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth. Study setting: Turkey | 425 children aged 7–13 analyzed using Demirjian, Nolla and Haavikko methods | All three methods not suitable for Turkish children |
| Koshy and Tandon 1998 [65] | Cross-sectional retrospective: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth. Study setting: Southern India | 184 children assessed using Demirjian method | Demirjian method overestimated chronological age hence not useful |
| Kumaresan et al. 2016 [66] |
Cross-sectional retrospective: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth. Study setting: Malaysia | 426 children aged 5–15 analyzed using Demirjian, Willems and Nolla methods | Demirjian method least precise, overestimated chronological age |
| Leurs et al. 2005 [67] | Cross-sectional retrospective: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth. Study setting: Holland | 451 children aged 3–17 analyzed using Demirjian method | Demirjian method overestimated chronological age hence not useful |
| Mani et al. 2008 [41] | Cross-sectional observational: Study setting: Malaysia | 214 boys and 214 girls, selected by simple stratified random sampling. OPGs analyzed using Demirjian and Willems methods | Both overestimated chronological age but Willems had better accuracy |
| Mohammed et al. 2014 [68] |
Cross-sectional comparative: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth. Study setting: South India | 660 children aged 6–13 analyzed using Willems, Demirjian, Nolla and Haavikko methods | All methods are reliable in estimating age |
| Mohammed et al. 2015 [69] |
Cross-sectional comparative: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth. Study setting: India | 332 children aged 6–15.99 analyzed using Demirjian and Willems methods | Willems method is the best predictor of chronological age |
| Nik-Hussein and Kee Gan 2011 [70] | Cross-sectional study: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth. Study setting: Malaysia | 991 children aged 5–15; Willems and Demirjian methods compared for accuracy | Willems method more applicable for estimating dental age. Demirjian method overestimated chronological age |
| Patel et al. 2016 [71] | Cross-sectional comparative: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth. Study setting: India | 160 children aged 6–16 analyzed using Demirjian, Willem and Greulich and Pyle methods | Willems method can be accurately used in Southern India |
| Urzel and Bruzek 2015 [72] |
Cross-sectional retrospective: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth. Study setting: France | 743 children aged 4–15 analyzed using Demirjian, Willems I, II and Chaillet methods | Willems I method the most suitable when sex and ethnicity are known |
| Uys et al. 2014 [73] | Cross-sectional retrospective: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth. Study setting: South Africa | 833 children aged 6–16 analyzed using Demirjian method | Demirjian method overestimated chronological age |
| Ye et al. 2014 [74] | Cross-sectional retrospective: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth. Study setting: China | 941 children aged 7–14 analyzed using Demirjian and Willems methods | Willems method more applicable for estimating dental age. Demirjian method overestimated chronological age |
| Zhai et al. 2016 [75] | Cross-sectional retrospective: OPG of 7 left mandibular teeth. Study setting: China | 1004 children aged 11–18 analyzed using Demirjian and Willems methods | Demirjian method overestimated chronological age but better accuracy with Demirjian method than with Willems method |
OPG = Panoramic Radiographs.