Literature DB >> 27650301

Forensic age estimation based on magnetic resonance imaging of third molars: converting 2D staging into 3D staging.

Jannick De Tobel1, Elke Hillewig1, Koenraad Verstraete1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Established methods to stage development of third molars for forensic age estimation are based on the evaluation of radiographs, which show a 2D projection. It has not been investigated whether these methods require any adjustments in order to apply them to stage third molars on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which shows 3D information. AIM: To prospectively study root stage assessment of third molars in age estimation using 3 Tesla MRI and to compare this with panoramic radiographs, in order to provide considerations for converting 2D staging into 3D staging and to determine the decisive root. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: All third molars were evaluated in 52 healthy participants aged 14-26 years using MRI in three planes. Three staging methods were investigated by two observers. In sixteen of the participants, MRI findings were compared with findings on panoramic radiographs.
RESULTS: Decisive roots were palatal in upper third molars and distal in lower third molars. Fifty-seven per cent of upper third molars were not assessable on the radiograph, while 96.9% were on MRI. Upper third molars were more difficult to evaluate on radiographs than on MRI (p < .001). Lower third molars were equally assessable on both imaging techniques (93.8% MRI, 98.4% radiograph), with no difference in level of difficulty (p = .375). Inter- and intra-observer agreement for evaluation was higher in MRI than in radiographs. In both imaging techniques lower third molars showed greater inter- and intra-observer agreement compared to upper third molars. MR images in the sagittal plane proved to be essential for staging.
CONCLUSION: In age estimation, 3T MRI of third molars could be valuable. Some considerations are, however, necessary to transfer known staging methods to this 3D technique.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Third molar root; panoramic radiograph; sub-adult; surface head coil

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27650301     DOI: 10.1080/03014460.2016.1223884

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Hum Biol        ISSN: 0301-4460            Impact factor:   1.533


  7 in total

Review 1.  CT and MR imaging used in age estimation: a systematic review.

Authors:  M B Bjørk; S I Kvaal
Journal:  J Forensic Odontostomatol       Date:  2018-05-30

2.  Forensic age diagnostics by magnetic resonance imaging of the proximal humeral epiphysis.

Authors:  Oguzhan Ekizoglu; Ercan Inci; Suna Ors; Elif Hocaoglu; Ismail Ozgur Can; Can Doruk Basa; Ismail Eralp Kacmaz; Elena F Kranioti
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 2.686

3.  Age estimation combining radiographic information of two dental and four skeletal predictors in children and subadults.

Authors:  Akiko Kumagai; Guy Willems; Ademir Franco; Patrick Thevissen
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2018-08-11       Impact factor: 2.686

4.  Forensic age estimation based on T1 SE and VIBE wrist MRI: do a one-fits-all staging technique and age estimation model apply?

Authors:  Jannick De Tobel; Elke Hillewig; Michiel Bart de Haas; Bram Van Eeckhout; Steffen Fieuws; Patrick Werner Thevissen; Koenraad Luc Verstraete
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Forensic age estimation based on development of third molars: a staging technique for magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  J De Tobel; I Phlypo; S Fieuws; C Politis; K L Verstraete; P W Thevissen
Journal:  J Forensic Odontostomatol       Date:  2017-12-01

6.  Age estimation based on 3D post-mortem computed tomography images of mandible and femur using convolutional neural networks.

Authors:  Cuong Van Pham; Su-Jin Lee; So-Yeon Kim; Sookyoung Lee; Soo-Hyung Kim; Hyung-Seok Kim
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Reducing acquisition time for MRI-based forensic age estimation.

Authors:  Bernhard Neumayer; Matthias Schloegl; Christian Payer; Thomas Widek; Sebastian Tschauner; Thomas Ehammer; Rudolf Stollberger; Martin Urschler
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 4.379

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.