Sonali Sarkar1, S Kailasam, P Mahesh Kumar. 1. Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Ragas Dental College and Hospital, No. 2/102, East Coast Road, Uthandi, Chennai 600119, Tamil Nadu, India. dr.sonali_sarkar@hotmail.com
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Demirjian's 8-teeth method widens the assessment in a wider age group, in comparison with the original 7-teeth method. AIM AND OBJECTIVE: Evaluate age in children, adolescents and young adults using Demirjian's 8-Teeth Method in an Indian population. Compare the effectiveness of existing Demirjian's formula with that of the Indian formula. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Panoramic radiographs of 50 male and 50 female patients aged between 5 and 24 years were collected. The radiographs were interpreted using Demirjian's 8-teeth method and the dental age calculated using Demirjian's formula and the Indian formula. Both the formula's were compared using paired 't' test (SPSS Statistics 11.5). RESULTS: Among the 100 samples the mean chronological age in 50 males was 13.44 years and mean chronological age in 50 females was 13.12 years. By using Demirjian's formula the mean dental age in male was 11.81 years and that in female was 11.58 years. By using Indian Formula the mean dental age in male was 13.54 years and that in female was 14.06 years. The mean dental age by both the formulas were compared with the corresponding chronological age. It was evaluated that the Demirjian's formula underestimated the mean dental age by 1.63 years in males and by 1.54 years in females, whereas a variation of 0.10 years in male and 0.94 years in female was found with the Indian formula. The mean dental age obtained using Indian formula was approximating with the chronological age in the male and female by a margin of 0.94 years. CONCLUSION: Acharya's Indian formula is more effective in evaluating the dental age closer to the chronological age of an individual in an Indian population in comparison with the existing Demirjian's formula.
UNLABELLED: Demirjian's 8-teeth method widens the assessment in a wider age group, in comparison with the original 7-teeth method. AIM AND OBJECTIVE: Evaluate age in children, adolescents and young adults using Demirjian's 8-Teeth Method in an Indian population. Compare the effectiveness of existing Demirjian's formula with that of the Indian formula. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Panoramic radiographs of 50 male and 50 female patients aged between 5 and 24 years were collected. The radiographs were interpreted using Demirjian's 8-teeth method and the dental age calculated using Demirjian's formula and the Indian formula. Both the formula's were compared using paired 't' test (SPSS Statistics 11.5). RESULTS: Among the 100 samples the mean chronological age in 50 males was 13.44 years and mean chronological age in 50 females was 13.12 years. By using Demirjian's formula the mean dental age in male was 11.81 years and that in female was 11.58 years. By using Indian Formula the mean dental age in male was 13.54 years and that in female was 14.06 years. The mean dental age by both the formulas were compared with the corresponding chronological age. It was evaluated that the Demirjian's formula underestimated the mean dental age by 1.63 years in males and by 1.54 years in females, whereas a variation of 0.10 years in male and 0.94 years in female was found with the Indian formula. The mean dental age obtained using Indian formula was approximating with the chronological age in the male and female by a margin of 0.94 years. CONCLUSION: Acharya's Indian formula is more effective in evaluating the dental age closer to the chronological age of an individual in an Indian population in comparison with the existing Demirjian's formula.