Jayakumar Jayaraman1, Hai Ming Wong2, Nigel M King3, Graham J Roberts4. 1. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur 57000, Malaysia. Electronic address: jayakumar83@hotmail.com. 2. Paediatric Dentistry & Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Electronic address: wonghmg@hku.hk. 3. Department of Paediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia. Electronic address: profnigelking@mac.com. 4. Department of Orthodontics, Floor 22, Tower Wing, St Thomas Street, King's College Dental Institute, London SE1 9RT, United Kingdom. Electronic address: graham.j.roberts@kcl.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many countries have recently experienced a rapid increase in the demand for forensic age estimates of unaccompanied minors. Hong Kong is a major tourist and business center where there has been an increase in the number of people intercepted with false travel documents. An accurate estimation of age is only possible when a dataset for age estimation that has been derived from the corresponding ethnic population. Thus, the aim of this study was to develop and validate a Reference Data Set (RDS) for dental age estimation for southern Chinese. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 2306 subjects were selected from the patient archives of a large dental hospital and the chronological age for each subject was recorded. This age was assigned to each specific stage of dental development for each tooth to create a RDS. To validate this RDS, a further 484 subjects were randomly chosen from the patient archives and their dental age was assessed based on the scores from the RDS. Dental age was estimated using meta-analysis command corresponding to random effects statistical model. Chronological age (CA) and Dental Age (DA) were compared using the paired t-test. RESULTS: The overall difference between the chronological and dental age (CA-DA) was 0.05 years (2.6 weeks) for males and 0.03 years (1.6 weeks) for females. The paired t-test indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the chronological and dental age (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The validated southern Chinese reference dataset based on dental maturation accurately estimated the chronological age.
BACKGROUND: Many countries have recently experienced a rapid increase in the demand for forensic age estimates of unaccompanied minors. Hong Kong is a major tourist and business center where there has been an increase in the number of people intercepted with false travel documents. An accurate estimation of age is only possible when a dataset for age estimation that has been derived from the corresponding ethnic population. Thus, the aim of this study was to develop and validate a Reference Data Set (RDS) for dental age estimation for southern Chinese. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 2306 subjects were selected from the patient archives of a large dental hospital and the chronological age for each subject was recorded. This age was assigned to each specific stage of dental development for each tooth to create a RDS. To validate this RDS, a further 484 subjects were randomly chosen from the patient archives and their dental age was assessed based on the scores from the RDS. Dental age was estimated using meta-analysis command corresponding to random effects statistical model. Chronological age (CA) and Dental Age (DA) were compared using the paired t-test. RESULTS: The overall difference between the chronological and dental age (CA-DA) was 0.05 years (2.6 weeks) for males and 0.03 years (1.6 weeks) for females. The paired t-test indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the chronological and dental age (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The validated southern Chinese reference dataset based on dental maturation accurately estimated the chronological age.
Authors: Lisete S Mónico; Luís F Tomás; Inmaculada Tomás; Purificación Varela-Patiño; Benjamin Martin-Biedma Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-10-04 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Jayakumar Jayaraman; Hai Ming Wong; Graham J Roberts; Nigel M King; Hugo F V Cardoso; Pavethynath Velusamy; Ronaldo G Vergara; Keni-Ichi Yanagita; Teekayu P Jorns Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 2.757