Helen M Liversidge1. 1. a Queen Mary University of London, Bart's and The Royal School of Medicine and Dentistry, Institute of Dentistry , Turner Street , London , UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous dental reference data exist to estimate age from developing permanent teeth. AIM: To compare the performance of reference data that provide a point estimate using the developing second molar. METHODS: Performance of several methods estimating age using mandibular second molar formation was compared using the Maber test sample (age = 3-16) of 946 dental radiographs. Mean difference and mean absolute difference between dental and chronological ages were calculated. The percentage of individuals with mean absolute difference <1 year was counted across age group and tooth stage. Results for the choice of Demirjian or Moorrees tooth staging, pooled-sex, opposite sex reference data, selected stages (initial cusp tips, crown complete, root half and root complete) and statistical approaches were compared. RESULTS: Tooth reference data conditioning on age, particularly probit mean age (age-at-transition) adapted for age prediction performed best. Results using sex-specific reference data, Moorrees stages and selected Moorrees stages were marginally better than other methods. No method performed well for ages 15 and 16 years. CONCLUSION: Adapted maturity data L9a and N25a reference data for this tooth performed best across age categories and tooth stages, with a mean absolute difference of 0.8 year.
BACKGROUND: Numerous dental reference data exist to estimate age from developing permanent teeth. AIM: To compare the performance of reference data that provide a point estimate using the developing second molar. METHODS: Performance of several methods estimating age using mandibular second molar formation was compared using the Maber test sample (age = 3-16) of 946 dental radiographs. Mean difference and mean absolute difference between dental and chronological ages were calculated. The percentage of individuals with mean absolute difference <1 year was counted across age group and tooth stage. Results for the choice of Demirjian or Moorrees tooth staging, pooled-sex, opposite sex reference data, selected stages (initial cusp tips, crown complete, root half and root complete) and statistical approaches were compared. RESULTS: Tooth reference data conditioning on age, particularly probit mean age (age-at-transition) adapted for age prediction performed best. Results using sex-specific reference data, Moorrees stages and selected Moorrees stages were marginally better than other methods. No method performed well for ages 15 and 16 years. CONCLUSION: Adapted maturity data L9a and N25a reference data for this tooth performed best across age categories and tooth stages, with a mean absolute difference of 0.8 year.
Keywords:
Accuracy; crown and root stage; dental age estimation; dental radiograph; permanent tooth; tooth stage
Authors: Raúl Fernández Ortega; Javier Irurita; Enrique José Estévez Campo; Pablo Mesejo Journal: Int J Legal Med Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 2.686
Authors: H M Liversidge; K Peariasamy; M O Folayan; A O Adeniyi; P I Ngom; Y Mikami; Y Shimada; K Kuroe; I F Tvete; S I Kvaal Journal: J Forensic Odontostomatol Date: 2017-12-01