A Comparison of Two Different Dental Age Estimation Methods in Turkish Children

Öz

Objective: Validity of dental age (DA) estimation methods are tested in different populations. The aim of this study is to compare the Demirjian (D) and Haavikko (H) methods in Turkish children. Methods: After obtaining ethical approval, panoramic radiographs of 8-14 year-old children in the archives of Department of Oral Diagnosis and Radiology were selected analyzed retrospectively. Chronological ages (CA) of the individuals were calculated by substracting the birth dates from the date of the panoramic x-ray was taken.DA of each child was determined by both D and H methods.Confidence intervals of 95% of the difference between DA and CA and the absolute difference are given.Regression models are formulated separately for each gender and DA method.The significance level was set to be p<0.05. Results: The mean CA of the 293 children is 10.098±1.74 years. 51.2% (n=150) of the cases were boys and 48.8% (n=143) were girls. The mean value of the results obtained with the H method for both gender was close to CA compared to the mean results obtained with the D method. The best estimate was found with H method (-0.39 years) in boys, H method (-0.46 years) in boys and girls, H method (-0.52 years) in girls (p<0.05).H method (R2=0.84) was found to be more successful for boys and D method method was found to be more successful (R2=0.77) for girls. Conclusion: It was observed that the use of only H or D method for age estimation for all children in 8-14 age group does not give accurate results. There is a need to investigate different methods.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• age determination by teeth
• panaromic radiography
• growth and development
• forensic dentistry

Türk Çocuklarında İki Yöntem ile Diş Yaşı Tayininin Birbiri ile Karşılaştırılması

Öz

Amaç: Diş yaşı (DY) tayini yöntemlerinin geçerliliği farklı popülasyonlarda test edilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı İstanbul’da yaşayan Türk çocukların DY tayininde Demirjian (D) ve Haavikko (H) yöntemlerinin karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesidir. Yöntem: Etik onayı alındıktan sonra, çalışma kapsamında İstanbul Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Oral Diagnoz ve Radyoloji Anabilim Dalı arşivindeki 8-14 yaş grubu çocuklara ait panoramik radyografiler dahil edilme kriterlerine göre seçilerek retrospektif olarak incelenmiştir. Bireylerin kronolojik yaşları (KY), panoramik röntgenin alındığı tarihten doğum tarihlerinin çıkarılması ile hesaplanmıştır. Her bir çocuğun DY’si D ve H yöntemlerinin her ikisi ile de belirlenmiştir. DY ve KY arasındaki farkın ve mutlak farkın %95 düzeyinde güven aralıkları verilmiştir. Doğrusal regresyon modelleri her bir cinsiyet ve her bir DY yöntemi için ayrı ayrı oluşturulmuştur. İstatistiksel testler için anlamlılık seviyesi p<0,05 olarak belirlenmiştir. Bulgular: Dahil edilen 293 çocuğun KY ortalaması 10,98±1,74 yıldır. Olguların %51,2’si (n=150) erkek, %48,8’i (n=143) kız çocuklardan oluşmaktadır. Her iki cinsiyet grubu için de H yöntemi ile elde edilen sonuçların ortalaması, D yöntemi ile elde edilen sonuçların ortalamasına göre KY’ye daha yakın olarak çıkmıştır. Buna göre en iyi tahmin sırası ile erkeklerde H yöntemi (-0,39 yıl), erkek ve kızlarda H yöntemi (-0,46 yıl), kızlarda H yöntemi (-0,52 yıl) ile bulunmuştur (p<0,05). Regresyon formülünde sadece erkekler çocuklar için H yönteminin (R2=0,84); sadece kız çocuklar için ise D yönteminin daha başarılı olduğu (R2=0,77) bulunmuştur. Sonuç: 8-14 yaş grubundaki tüm çocuklar için H ve D yönteminin diş yaşını tayin etmede tek başlarına kullanılmalarının doğru sonucu vermediği, kız ve erkek çocuklar için ayrı olmak üzere yaş dilimlerine göre farklı yöntemlerin kullanılmasının gerektiği görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• dişlerden yaş tespiti
• panoramik radyografi
• büyüme ve gelişim
• adli diş hekimliği

Kaynakça

1. Patnana AK, Vabbalareddy RS, Vanga NR V. Evaluating the reliability of three different dental age estimation methods in Visakhapatnam children. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2014;7(3):186.
2. Schour I, Hoffman MM. Experimental demonstration of the daily apposition of 16 micra of enamel and dentin in growing mammalian teeth. J Dent Res. 1935;15(3):161-162.
3. Demirjian A, Buschang PH, Tanguay R, Patterson DK. Interrelationships among measures of somatic, skeletal, dental, and sexual maturity. Am J Orthod. 1985;88(5):433-438.
4. Panchbhai AS. Dental radiographic indicators, a key to age estimation. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2011;40(4):199-212.
5. Demirjian A, Goldstein H, Tanner JM. A new system of dental age assessment. Hum Biol. 1973:211-227.
6. Nolla CM. The development of permanent teeth. J Dent Child (Chic). 1952: 254-266.
7. Gleiser I, Hunt EE. The estimation of age and sex of preadolescent children from bones and teeth. Am J Phys Anthr. 1955;13:479-488.
8. Haavikko K. The formation and the alveolar and clinical eruption of the permanent teeth. An orthopantomographic study. Suom Hammaslaakariseuran toimituksia= Fin tandlakarsallskapets Forh. 1970;66(3):103.

9. Butti AC, Clivio A, Ferraroni M, Spada E, Testa A, Salvato A. Häävikko’s method to assess dental age in Italian children. Eur J Orthod. 2008;31(2):150-155.
10. Tunc E Sen, Koyuturk AE. Dental age assessment using Demirjian’s method on northern Turkish children. Forensic Sci Int. 2008;175(1):23-26.
11. Koshy S, Tandon S. Dental age assessment: the applicability of Demirjian’s method in south Indian children. Forensic Sci Int. 1998;94(1-2):73-85.
12. Loevy HT, Goldberg AF. Shifts in tooth maturation patterns in non‐French Canadian boys. Int J Paediatr Dent. 1999;9(2):105-110.
13. Flood SJ, Franklin D, Turlach BA, McGeachie J. A comparison of Demirjian’s four dental development methods for forensic age estimation in South Australian sub-adults. J Forensic Leg Med. 2013;20(7):875-883.
14. Eid RMR, Simi R, Friggi MNP, Fisberg M. Assessment of dental maturity of Brazilian children aged 6 to 14 years using Demirjian’s method. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2002;12(6):423-428.
15. Al-Emran S. Dental age assessment of 8.5 to 17 Year-old Saudi children using Demirjian’s method. J Contemp Dent Pr. 2008;9(3):64-71.
16. Celikoglu M, Cantekin K, Ceylan I. Dental age assessment: the applicability of Demirjian method in eastern Turkish children. J Forensic Sci. 2011;56:S220-S222.
17. Lewis AB, Garn SM. The relationship between tooth formation and other maturational factors. Angle Orthod. 1960;30(2):70-77.
18. Mentes A, Ergeneli S, Tanboga I. Applicability of Demirjian’s standards to the Turkish children’s dental age estimation. J Marmara Univ Dent Fac. 2000;4(1):63-68.
19. Pinar Erdem A, Yamac E, Erdem MA, Sepet E, Aytepe Z. A new method to estimate dental age. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013;71(3-4):590-598. doi:10.3109/00016357.2012.700062
20. Nur B, Kusgoz A, Bayram 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(5):e871.
21. Kırzıoğlu Z, Ceyhan D. Accuracy of different dental age estimation methods on Turkish children. Forensic Sci Int. 2012;216(1-3):61-67.
22. Sisman Y, Uysal T, Yagmur F, Ramoglu SI. Third-molar development in relation to chronologic age in Turkish children and young adults. Angle Orthod. 2007;77(6):1040-1045.
23. Ogodescu AE, Bratu E, Tudor A, Ogodescu A. Estimation of child’s biological age based on tooth development. Rom J Leg Med. 2011;19(2):115-124.
24. Maber M, Liversidge HM, Hector MP. Accuracy of age estimation of radiographic methods using developing teeth. Forensic Sci Int. 2006;159:S68-S73.
25. Kumaresan R, Cugati N, Chandrasekaran B, Karthikeyan P. Reliability and validity of five radiographic dental-age estimation methods in a population of Malaysian children. J Investig Clin Dent. 2016;7(1):102-109. doi:10.1111/jicd.12116
26. Zhai Y, Park H, Han J, Wang H, Ji F, Tao J. Dental age assessment in a northern Chinese population. J Forensic Leg Med. 2016;38:43-49.
27. Kelmendi J, Vodanović M, Koçani F, Bimbashi V, Mehmeti B, Galić I. Dental age estimation using four Demirjian’s, Chaillet’s and Willems’ methods in Kosovar children. Leg Med. 2018;33(April):23-31. doi:10.1016/j.legalmed.2018.04.006
28. Mörnstad H, Reventlid M, Teivens A. The validity of four methods for age determination by teeth in Swedish children: a multicentre study. Swed Dent J. 1995;19(4):121-130.
29. Staaf V, Mörnstad H, Welander U. Age estimation based on tooth development: a test of reliability and validity. Eur J Oral Sci. 1991;99(4):281-286.
30. Galić I, Vodanović M, Cameriere R, et al. Accuracy of Cameriere, Haavikko, and Willems radiographic methods on age estimation on Bosnian–Herzegovian children age groups 6–13. Int J Legal Med. 2011;125(2):315-321.
31. Mohammed RB, Sanghvi P, Perumalla KK, et al. Accuracy of four dental age estimation methods in southern Indian children. J Clin diagnostic Res JCDR. 2015;9(1):HC01.
32. Liversidge HM, Lyons F, Hector MP. The accuracy of three methods of age estimation using radiographic measurements of developing teeth. Forensic Sci Int. 2003;131(1):22-29.
33. Pinchi V, Norelli G-A, Pradella F, Vitale G, Rugo D, Nieri M. Comparison of the applicability of four odontological methods for age estimation of the 14 years legal threshold in a sample of Italian adolescents. J Forensic Odontostomatol. 2012;30(2):17.
34. Benedicto EN, Azevedo ACS, Michel-Crosato E, Biazevic MGH. Validity and accuracy of three radiographic dental age estimation methods in Brazilians. Forensic Sci Int. 2018;283:128-135.
35. Rai B, Anand SC. Tooth developments: an accuracy of age estimation of radiographic methods. World J Med Sci. 2006;1(2):130-132.
36. 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;73(2):121-125.
37. Apaydin B, Yasar F. Estimating Dental Age on Turkish children. Niger J Clin Pract. 2018;21(3):257-263.
38. Gungor OE, Kale B, Celikoglu M, Gungor AY, Sari Z. Validity of the Demirjian method for dental age estimation for Southern Turkish children. Niger J Clin Pract. 2015;18(5):616-619.