T Y Marroquin1, S Karkhanis2, S I Kvaal3, S Vasudavan4, E Kruger5, M Tennant6. 1. University of Western Australia, School of Anatomy Physiology and Human Biology, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley WA 6009, Australia. Electronic address: taliayolanda.marroquinpenaloza@research.uwa.edu.au. 2. University of Western Australia, School of Anatomy Physiology and Human Biology, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley WA 6009, Australia. Electronic address: karkhs01@student.uwa.edu.au. 3. University of Oslo, Department of Oral Pathology and Section of Forensic Odontology, P.O. Box 1109, Blindern, Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: s.i.kvaal@odont.uio.no. 4. Department of Developmental Biology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, 188 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02115, United States. Electronic address: Sivabalan_Vasudavan@hsdm.harvard.edu. 5. University of Western Australia, School of Anatomy Physiology and Human Biology, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley WA 6009, Australia. Electronic address: estie.kruger@uwa.edu.au. 6. University of Western Australia, School of Anatomy Physiology and Human Biology, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley WA 6009, Australia. Electronic address: marc.tennant@uwa.edu.au.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: The need to rely on proper, simple, and accurate methods for age estimation in adults is still a world-wide issue. It has been well documented that teeth are more resistant than bones to the taphonomic processes, and that the use of methods for age estimation based on dental imaging assessment are not only less invasive than those based on osseous analysis, but also have shown similar or superior accuracy in adults. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the results of some of the recently most recently cited methods for dental age estimation in adults, based on odontometric dental imaging analysis, to establish which is more accurate, accessible, and simple. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A literature search from several databases was conducted from January 1995 to July 2016 with previously defined inclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of this review, it could be possible to suggest pulp/tooth area ratio calculation from first, upper canines and other single rooted teeth (lower premolars, upper central incisors), and a specific statistical analysis that considers the non-linear production of secondary dentine with age, as a reliable, easy, faster, and predictable method for dental age estimation in adults. The second recommended method is the pulp/tooth width-length ratio calculation. The use of specific population formulae is recommended, but to include data of individuals from different groups of population in the same analysis is not discouraged. A minimum sample size of at least 120 participants is recommended to obtain more reliable results. Methods based on volume calculation are time consuming and still need improvement.
IMPORTANCE: The need to rely on proper, simple, and accurate methods for age estimation in adults is still a world-wide issue. It has been well documented that teeth are more resistant than bones to the taphonomic processes, and that the use of methods for age estimation based on dental imaging assessment are not only less invasive than those based on osseous analysis, but also have shown similar or superior accuracy in adults. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the results of some of the recently most recently cited methods for dental age estimation in adults, based on odontometric dental imaging analysis, to establish which is more accurate, accessible, and simple. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A literature search from several databases was conducted from January 1995 to July 2016 with previously defined inclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of this review, it could be possible to suggest pulp/tooth area ratio calculation from first, upper canines and other single rooted teeth (lower premolars, upper central incisors), and a specific statistical analysis that considers the non-linear production of secondary dentine with age, as a reliable, easy, faster, and predictable method for dental age estimation in adults. The second recommended method is the pulp/tooth width-length ratio calculation. The use of specific population formulae is recommended, but to include data of individuals from different groups of population in the same analysis is not discouraged. A minimum sample size of at least 120 participants is recommended to obtain more reliable results. Methods based on volume calculation are time consuming and still need improvement.
Authors: Ana Molina; Manuel Bravo; Gabriel M Fonseca; Nicholas Márquez-Grant; Stella Martín-de-Las-Heras Journal: Int J Legal Med Date: 2020-07-17 Impact factor: 2.686
Authors: R Cameriere; Stefano De Luca; I Soriano Vázquez; H C Kiş; Y Pigolkin; A Kumagai; L Ferrante Journal: Int J Legal Med Date: 2020-10-05 Impact factor: 2.686
Authors: Ana C Fernández-Escudero; Isabel Legaz; Gemma Prieto-Bonete; Manuel López-Nicolás; Antonio Maurandi-López; María D Pérez-Cárceles Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-06-19 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Maximilian Timme; Jens Borkert; Nina Nagelmann; Adam Streeter; André Karch; Andreas Schmeling Journal: Int J Legal Med Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 2.686