Burak Çarıkçıoğlu1, Berkant Sezer2. 1. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale, Turkey. carikcioglub@gmail.com. 2. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: One or more missing teeth, such as hypodontia, make it difficult to obtain accurate results in age estimation methods. This paper aims to test the accuracy of the models developed by Bedek et al. that can estimate age with fewer than seven teeth for Turkish children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Panoramic radiographs of 1118 children (540 girls and 578 boys) aged between 6 and 16 years were evaluated using the Willems method and Bedek models for the entire sample and for different ages and sexes. Differences between dental age (DA) and chronological age (CA) calculated for all methods for each sex and all age groups were analyzed the paired sample t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test. The accuracy of the DA estimation methods was determined by the proximity of DA to CA by calculating mean absolute error (MAE). RESULTS: While all Bedek models underestimated CA by 0.2 to 0.1 years, the Willems method overestimated CA by 0.3 years. DA-CA difference in the total sample and girls was statistically significant in all methods. In the total sample, the seven- and four-teeth models had the lowest MAE, while the one-tooth model had the highest MAE. CONCLUSIONS: Seven- and four-teeth models were the most suitable for age estimation, and all models except the one-tooth model were found to be more accurate than the Willems method in northwestern Turkish children. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Especially in children with hypodontia, it may be possible to estimate DA with the use of Bedek models.
OBJECTIVES: One or more missing teeth, such as hypodontia, make it difficult to obtain accurate results in age estimation methods. This paper aims to test the accuracy of the models developed by Bedek et al. that can estimate age with fewer than seven teeth for Turkish children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Panoramic radiographs of 1118 children (540 girls and 578 boys) aged between 6 and 16 years were evaluated using the Willems method and Bedek models for the entire sample and for different ages and sexes. Differences between dental age (DA) and chronological age (CA) calculated for all methods for each sex and all age groups were analyzed the paired sample t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test. The accuracy of the DA estimation methods was determined by the proximity of DA to CA by calculating mean absolute error (MAE). RESULTS: While all Bedek models underestimated CA by 0.2 to 0.1 years, the Willems method overestimated CA by 0.3 years. DA-CA difference in the total sample and girls was statistically significant in all methods. In the total sample, the seven- and four-teeth models had the lowest MAE, while the one-tooth model had the highest MAE. CONCLUSIONS: Seven- and four-teeth models were the most suitable for age estimation, and all models except the one-tooth model were found to be more accurate than the Willems method in northwestern Turkish children. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Especially in children with hypodontia, it may be possible to estimate DA with the use of Bedek models.