Dental Maturity in South France: A Comparison Between Demirjian's Method and Polynomial Functions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dental maturity of 1031 healthy southern French subjects aged between 2 and 18 years was studied with dental panoramic tomograms. Demirjian's method based on seven and eight teeth has been used to determine maturity scores as a function of age and polynomial functions to determine age as a function of score. We give gender-specific tables of maturity scores and development graphs for each method. The goal of these methods is different because of the nature of the predictions. The percentiles give the dental maturity compared to a standard for a specific age, and polynomial functions give an age prediction with a confidence interval for age. The variations in dental maturity are specific to each population. Thus, the aim of this study is to give the dental maturity standards for southern French children and to compare both the efficiency and applicability of each method in several fields such as forensic sciences or dental health for the clinicians. The addition of the third molar increased the reliability and the capacity of prediction up to 18 years. The polynomial functions showed the best reliability (1.3% of misclassified) and the percentile methods the best accuracy (more or less 1.2 years, on average, between 2 and 18 years of age).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it