OBJECTIVE: To compare inter- and intra-observer variation in age estimation using subjective and objective methods. METHODS: Fifty-six panoramic radiographs of patients aged 13 to 25 years were assessed subjectively twice by four observers for the stage of root development of the lower third molars on a seven-point scale. Two of the observers were calibrated before the first evaluation, and the other two before the second. The same observers also digitized predefined reference points in a subsample of the third molars ten times by means of a computer-based digitizer system. Observer variation in classifying different root stages and in digitizing coordinates and measuring root lengths were studied. RESULTS: Significant systematic differences existed between two of the observers in the subjective assessment. One non-pre-calibrated observer changed her pattern most. Scattergrams from the digitizer measurements showed a good precision within and between observers with no significant differences in calculating root lengths. When, however, the teeth were analysed separately, some significant differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: The overall observer agreement was best using the objective method on several teeth. With only one tooth there were some significant differences. Subjective evaluation was improved by prior calibration.
OBJECTIVE: To compare inter- and intra-observer variation in age estimation using subjective and objective methods. METHODS: Fifty-six panoramic radiographs of patients aged 13 to 25 years were assessed subjectively twice by four observers for the stage of root development of the lower third molars on a seven-point scale. Two of the observers were calibrated before the first evaluation, and the other two before the second. The same observers also digitized predefined reference points in a subsample of the third molars ten times by means of a computer-based digitizer system. Observer variation in classifying different root stages and in digitizing coordinates and measuring root lengths were studied. RESULTS: Significant systematic differences existed between two of the observers in the subjective assessment. One non-pre-calibrated observer changed her pattern most. Scattergrams from the digitizer measurements showed a good precision within and between observers with no significant differences in calculating root lengths. When, however, the teeth were analysed separately, some significant differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: The overall observer agreement was best using the objective method on several teeth. With only one tooth there were some significant differences. Subjective evaluation was improved by prior calibration.
Authors: Sudheer B Balla; Srikanth Aryasri Ankisetti; Anjum Bushra; Vimal Bharathi Bolloju; Ali Mir Mujahed; Alekhya Kanaparthi; Sai Shravani Buddhavarapu Journal: Int J Legal Med Date: 2020-01-25 Impact factor: 2.686