Relation of Two Different Dental Age Determination Methods to Chronological and Bone Age in a South Turkish Children Population

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the study is to assess the relation of Demirjian’s and Nolla’s dental age determination methods with chronological age and bone age in Turkish children aged between 10-15. Methods: In the retrospective study, 717 children were included, their chronological age and bone age in accordance with Greulich-Pyle Atlas by evaluating left hand wrist radiograms, dental age in accordance with Demirjian’s and Nolla’s methods by using panoramic radiograms were analyzed. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 23.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA). Results: The bone age and the dental ages calculated according to Demirjian’s and Nolla’s methods was found higher than the chronological age by +0.29 year, +0.77 year and +0.23 year, respectively. The closest result to chronological age came from Nolla’s method. Conclusions: In contrast to the previous studies in the South Turkish population, Demirjian method was found to give incompatible results. In this study, it was shown that Nolla method is more reliable in determining dental age for this population. In addition, the bone age and dental age estimated according to Nolla methods were quite similar to each other.

Keywords

• Chronological age
• Bone age
• Dental age
• Demirjian’s method
• Nolla’s method

Güney Türk Çocuk Popülasyonunda İki Farklı Diş Yaşı Tespit Yönteminin Kronolojik Yaş ve Kemik Yaşı ile İlişkisi

Öz

Amaç: Çalışmanın amacı, 10-15 yaş aralığındaki Türk çocuklarında Demirjian ve Nolla'nın diş yaşı belirleme yöntemlerinin kronolojik yaş ve kemik yaşı ile ilişkisini değerlendirmektir. Yöntem: Retrospektif çalışmaya 717 çocuk dahil edildi, sol el bilek radyogramları değerlendirilerek Greulich-Pyle Atlas'a göre kronolojik yaşları ve kemik yaşları, panoramik radyogramlar kullanılarak Demirjian ve Nolla'nın yöntemlerine göre diş yaşları analiz edildi. İstatistiksel analizler Windows için SPSS sürüm 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, ABD) kullanılarak yapıldı. Bulgular: Demirjian ve Nolla'nın yöntemlerine göre hesaplanan kemik yaşı ve diş yaşları, kronolojik yaştan sırasıyla +0,29 yıl, +0,77 yıl ve +0,23 yıl yüksek bulundu. Kronolojik yaşa en yakın sonuç Nolla'nın yönteminde geldi. Sonuç: Güney Türk popülasyonunda yapılan önceki çalışmaların aksine, Demirjian yönteminin uyumsuz sonuçlar verdiği bulundu. Bu çalışmada, Nolla yönteminin bu popülasyon için diş yaşını belirlemede daha güvenilir olduğu gösterildi. Ayrıca, Nolla yöntemlerine göre tahmin edilen kemik yaşı ve diş yaşı birbirine oldukça benzerdi.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Diş yaşı
• Kemik yaşı
• Kronolojik yaş Nolla yöntemi
• Demirjian yöntemi

Kaynakça

1. 1. Greulich WW, Pyle SI. Radiographic atlas of skeletal development of the hand andwrist. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1950.
2. 2. Tanner JM, Whitehouse RH, Marshall WA, et al. Assessment of Skeletal Maturity and Prediction of Adult Height (TW3 Method). London, New York, San Fransisco: Academic Press; 1975.
3. 3. Demirjian A, Goldstein H, Tanner JM. A new system of dental assessment. Hum Biol 1973; 45: 211-27. 4. Nolla CM. The development of the permanent teeth. J Dent Child. 1960; 27: 254-66.
4. 5. Haavikko K. Tooth formation age estimated on a few selected teeth. A simple method for clinical use. Proceedings of the Finnish Dental Society 1974; 70: 15-9.
5. 6. Moorrees CF, Fanning EA, Hunt EE. Age variation of formation stages forten permanent teeth. J Dent Res. 1963; 42: 1490-502.
6. 7. Ambarkova V, Galic I, Vodanovic M, Lukenda DB, Brkic H. Dental age estimation using Demirjian and Willems methods: Cross sectional study on children from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Forensic Sci Int. 2013; 187: 1-7.
7. 8. Gupta S, Mehendiratta M, Rehani S, Kumra M, Nagpal R, Gupta R. Age estimationin Indian children and adolescents in the NCR region of Haryana: a comparative study. J Forensic Dent Sci. 2015; 73: 253-8.
8. 9. Zhai Y, Park H, Han J, Wang H, Ji F, Tao J. Dental age assessment in a northernChinese population. J Forensic Leg Med. 2016; 38: 43-9.

9. 10. Gungor OE, Kale B, Celikoglu M, Gungor AY, Sari Z. Validity ofthe Demirjian method for dental age estimation for Southern Turkish children. Niger J Clin Pract. 2015; 18: 616-9.
10. 11. Melo M, Ata-Ali J. Accuracy of the estimation of dental age in comparison with chronological age in a Spanish sample of 2641 living subjects using the Demirjian and Nolla methods. Forensic Sci Int. 2017; 270: 276.
11. 12. Miloglu O, Celikoglu M, Dane A, Cantekin K, Yilmaz AB.Is the assessment of dental age by the Nolla method valid for eastern Turkish children? J Forensic Sci. 2011; 56: 1025-8.
12. 13. Hala LA, Moraes ME, Villaça-Carvalho MF, de Castro Lopes SL, Gamba Tde O. Comparison of accuracy between dental and skeletal age in the estimation of chronological age of Down syndrome individuals. Forensic Sci Int. 2016; 266: 1-7.
13. 14. Medina AC, Pozo RD, de Cedres LB. radiographic assessment of dental maturation in children with dental agenesis. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2016; 40: 227-34.
14. 15. Tomas LF, Monico LS, Tomas I, Varela-Patino P, Martin-Biedma B.The accuracy of estimating chronological age from Demirjian and Nolla methods in a Portuguese and Spanish sample. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14: 160.
15. 16. Nur B, Kusgoz A, Bayram M, Celikoglu M, et al. Validity of Demirjian and Nolla methods for dental age estimation for Northeastern Turkish children aged 5-16 years old. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012; 17: 871-7.
16. 17. Varghese ST, Kumar V, Paul S, Jose LK, Mathew T, Siddique S. Estimation of dental and bone age in obese children of South India. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2018; 8: 153-9.
17. 18. Palanisamy V, Rao A, Shenoy R, Baranya SS. Correlation of dental age, skeletal age, and chronological age among children aged 9-14 years: A retrospective study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2016; 34: 310-4.
18. 19. Celikoglu M, Cantekin K, Ceylan I. Dental age assessment: the applicability of Demirjian method in eastern Turkish children. J Forensic Sci. 2011; 56: 220-2.
19. 20. Cruz-Landeira A, Linares-Argote J, Martínez-Rodríguez M, Rodríguez-Calvo MS, Otero XL, Concheiro L. Dental age estimation in Spanish and Venezuelanchildren. Comparison of Demirjian and Chaillet's scores. Int J Legal Med. 2010; 124: 105-12.
20. 21. Bagherpour A, Imanimoghaddam M, Bagherpour MR, Einolghozati M. Dental ageassessment among Iranian children aged 6-13 years using the Demirjian method. Forensic Sci Int. 2010; 197: 121.1-4
21. 22. Al-Emran S. Dental age assessment of 8.5 to 17 year-old Saudi children using Demirjian's method. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2008; 9: 64-71.
22. 23. Kalinowska IR, Raczkowska EK, Kalinowski P. Dental age in Central Poland. Forensic Sci Int. 2008; 174: 207-16.
23. 24. Tunc ES, Koyuturk AE. Dental age assessment using Demirjian's method on northern Turkish children. Forensic Sci Int. 2008; 175: 23-6.
24. 25. Altunsoy M, Nur BG, Akkemik O, Ok E, Evcil MS. Applicability of the Demirjian method for dental age estimation in western Turkish children. Acta Odontol Scand. 2015; 3: 121-5.
25. 26. De Moraes ME, De Moraes LC, Cardoso M, Ursi W, Lopes SL. Age assessmentbased on dental calcification in individuals with Down syndrome. Res Dev Disabil. 2013; 34: 4274-9.
26. 27. Rai B. The evaluation of two radiographic methods for age determination ofchildren in an Indian population. J Forensic Odontostomatol. 2008; 26: 30-3.
27. 28. Karadayi B, Kaya A, Kolusayın MO, Karadayi S, Afsin H, Ozaslan A. Radiologicalage estimation: Based on third molar mineralization and eruption in Turkish children and young adults. Int J Legal Med. 2012; 126: 933-42.
28. 29. Özer S, Kama J, Hamamcı O, Darı O, Çelik Y. İki farklı diş yaşı yönteminin karşılıklı olarak değerlendirilmesi. Türk Ortodonti Dergisi. 1997; 12: 305-5.