International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 5 ( May, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Accuracy of Different Dental Age Estimation Methods Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography: A Comparative Study

Ashima Tyagi, Nikhil Srivastava, Vivek Rana, Noopur Kaushik, Sumit Goel, Amit K Khera

Keywords : Cone beam computed tomography, Demirjian method, Nolla's method, Schour and Massler

Citation Information : Tyagi A, Srivastava N, Rana V, Kaushik N, Goel S, Khera AK. Accuracy of Different Dental Age Estimation Methods Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography: A Comparative Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17 (5):558-564.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2860

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 22-08-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Background: Age assessment is useful in various fields of dentistry due to its ability to influence the planning of dental treatments. Dental age estimation methods are specifically based on age-related variables observed in two-dimensional (2D) radiographs in the dentition in terms of the time of emergence and are considered reliable in determining the chronological age; however, the inevitable problems of orientation errors found in 2D can be eliminated using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Objective: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of different radiological dental age estimation methods using CBCT in relation to the chronological age of children. Materials and methods: A total of 100 CBCT images of patients in the age-group of 8–15 years requiring orthodontic treatment were obtained from December 2019 to August 2022. The exact chronological age was determined through valid proof, that is, aadhar card or birth certificate. The dental age of the children was assessed using all four methods—Nolla's method (NM), Demirjian method (DM), Schour and Massler (S&M), and Cameriere method (CM). Results: The results found that NM underestimated the mean age by 0.24 years, while DM overestimated the mean age by 0.82 years. Both showed statistically significant differences based on the standard deviation (SD) (p < 0.05). S&M and CM also overestimated the mean age by 1.16 years and 2.75 years respectively, but with statistically nonsignificant differences (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Among the four tested radiographic methods, the best accuracy was found with NM, which tended to underestimate but was closest to the chronological age. CBCT provided better age estimation values without image distortion.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Bhadana S, Indushekar KR, Saraf BG, et al. Comparative assessment of chronological, dental, and skeletal age in children. Indian J Dent Res 2019;30(5):687–691. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_698_17
  2. Malik P, Rana V, Rehani U. To evaluate the relationship between mandibular canine calcification stages and skeletal age. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012;5(1):14–19. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1127
  3. George GJ, Chatra L, Shenoy P, et al. Age determination by S&M method: a forensic study. Int J Forensic Odontol 2018;3(1):36–39. DOI: 10.4103/ijfo.ijfo_5_18
  4. Schour I, Massler M. The development of the human dentition. J Am Den Assoc 1941;28:1153–1160.
  5. Nolla CM. The development of permanent teeth. J Dent Child 1960;27:254–266.
  6. Demirjian A, Goldstein H, Tanner JM. A new system of dental age assessment. Human Biol 1973;45(2):211–227.
  7. Cameriere R, Ferrante L, Belcastro M, et al. Age estimation by pulp/tooth ratio in canines by periapical X-rays. J Forensic Sci 2007;52(1):166–170. DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00336.x
  8. Yang F, Jacobs R, Willems G. Dental age estimation through volume matching of teeth imaged by cone-beam CT. Forensic Sci Int 2006;159:S78–S83. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.02.031
  9. Penaloza TY, Karkhanis S, Kvaal SI, et al. Application of the Kvaal method for adult dental age estimation using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). J Forensic Legal Med 2016;44:178–182. DOI: 10.1016/j.jflm.2016.10.013
  10. Zirk M, Zoeller JE, Lentzen MP, et al. Comparison of two established 2D staging techniques to their appliance in 3D cone beam computer-tomography for dental age estimation. Sci Rep 2021;11(1):1–9. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-88379-1
  11. Gaurav V, Srivastava N, Rana V, et al. A study of root canal morphology of human primary incisors and molars using cone beam computerized tomography: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2013;31(4):254. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.121827
  12. Tyagi A, Srivastava N, Rana V, et al. Radiological and nonradiological methods of dental and skeletal age assessment: A narrative review. J Oral Maxill Radiol 2022;10(1):1. DOI: 10.4103/jomr.jomr_5_22
  13. Kirzioglu Z, Ceyhan D. Accuracy of different dental age estimation methods on Turkish children. Forensic Sci Int 2012;216(1–3):61–67. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.08.018
  14. Shen S, Liu Z, Wang J, et al. Machine learning assisted Cameriere for dental age estimation. BMC Oral Health 2021;21(1):1–10. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01996-0
  15. 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):871–877. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.18034
  16. Fantasia E, Rodi G, D'emidio MM, et al. Comparison between Nolla and Demirjian dental age assessment methods: a systematic review. Am J Orthod 2016;7(10):52.
  17. Boel T, Bahri TA. Age estimation using Schour-Massler method compared to the Demirjian method. Dentika Dent J 2019;22(1):15–19. DOI: 10.32734/dentika.v22i1.1713
  18. Wolf TG, Briseño-Marroquín B, Callaway A, et al. Dental age assessment in 6- to 14-year old German children: comparison of Cameriere and Demirjian methods. BMC Oral Health 2016;16(1):1–8. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-016-0315-8
  19. Merdietio Boedi R, Shepherd S, Mânica S, et al. CBCT in dental age estimation: a systematic review and meta analysis. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 2022;51(4):20210335. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20210335
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.