Testing international techniques for the radiographic assessment of third molar maturation.
Journal
Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry
ISSN: 1989-5488
Titre abrégé: J Clin Exp Dent
Pays: Spain
ID NLM: 101603132
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
31
08
2021
accepted:
08
11
2021
entrez:
6
1
2022
pubmed:
7
1
2022
medline:
7
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To assess the radiographic third molar maturation with internationally developed techniques for age estimation. The study analyzed 1,062 panoramic radiographs of patients treated at the School of Dentistry of the University of Passo Fundo/RS/Brazil, between 2009 and 2020. The patients were separated into ages between 15.00 and 23.99 years and, for each radiograph, the third molars were classified into stages from 1 to 10, with the subsequent application of one of the formulae proposed by Gunst et al. A dichotomous variable indicating whether each individual was younger or older than 18 was calculated from the chronological age of the individuals. A logistic regression model was adjusted to assess whether the third molar stages are correlated with the age of individuals. The error indicators between estimated and chronological ages showed that mean errors closer to zero are seen in the 18-18.9 and 17-17.9 age groups, respectively. Male individuals were earlier in terms of dental mineralization but there were no significant differences between sexes regarding the applicability of the method. The ROC curve shows that the analysis of a single third molar for age estimation gives a maximum of 70.4% reliability. The moderate performance of the technique tested in the present study justify future country-specific corrections to improve age estimation from the radiographic assessment of third molar maturity.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To assess the radiographic third molar maturation with internationally developed techniques for age estimation.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
The study analyzed 1,062 panoramic radiographs of patients treated at the School of Dentistry of the University of Passo Fundo/RS/Brazil, between 2009 and 2020. The patients were separated into ages between 15.00 and 23.99 years and, for each radiograph, the third molars were classified into stages from 1 to 10, with the subsequent application of one of the formulae proposed by Gunst et al. A dichotomous variable indicating whether each individual was younger or older than 18 was calculated from the chronological age of the individuals. A logistic regression model was adjusted to assess whether the third molar stages are correlated with the age of individuals.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The error indicators between estimated and chronological ages showed that mean errors closer to zero are seen in the 18-18.9 and 17-17.9 age groups, respectively. Male individuals were earlier in terms of dental mineralization but there were no significant differences between sexes regarding the applicability of the method. The ROC curve shows that the analysis of a single third molar for age estimation gives a maximum of 70.4% reliability.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The moderate performance of the technique tested in the present study justify future country-specific corrections to improve age estimation from the radiographic assessment of third molar maturity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34987709
doi: 10.4317/jced.58916
pii: 58916
pmc: PMC8715557
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e1182-e1188Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2021 Medicina Oral S.L.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of interest The authors state that there are no conflicts of interest related to this work.
Références
J Forensic Sci. 2002 May;47(3):531-5
pubmed: 12051331
Arch Oral Biol. 2021 May;125:105102
pubmed: 33706152
Eur J Med Res. 2001 Sep 28;6(9):377-84
pubmed: 11591528
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1955 Jun;13(2):253-83
pubmed: 13258780
J Forensic Sci. 1993 Mar;38(2):379-90
pubmed: 8454998
Int J Legal Med. 2019 Mar;133(2):583-592
pubmed: 30056619
J Forensic Odontostomatol. 2018 Dec 1;36(2):2-9
pubmed: 30712026
Int J Legal Med. 2019 Nov;133(6):1925-1933
pubmed: 31273446
J Forensic Odontostomatol. 1996 Dec;14(2):30-3
pubmed: 9227080
Int J Paediatr Dent. 2002 Nov;12(6):423-8
pubmed: 12452984
Int J Legal Med. 2008 Nov;122(6):493-7
pubmed: 18751992
Int J Legal Med. 2019 Mar;133(2):625-632
pubmed: 30635722
Imaging Sci Dent. 2014 Sep;44(3):185-91
pubmed: 25279338
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2021 Feb 1;50(2):20200128
pubmed: 32479117
Forensic Sci Int. 2010 Sep 10;201(1-3):106-11
pubmed: 20483555
Forensic Sci Res. 2018 Oct 2;4(4):303-315
pubmed: 32002489
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2010 Jul;142(3):481-90
pubmed: 20310064
Int J Legal Med. 2019 Jul;133(4):1207-1215
pubmed: 30993445
Forensic Sci Int. 2013 Mar 10;226(1-3):300.e1-5
pubmed: 23415402
Forensic Sci Int. 2003 Sep 9;136(1-3):52-7
pubmed: 12969620
Forensic Sci Res. 2018 Oct 08;4(1):45-50
pubmed: 30915416
Ann Anat. 1994 Aug;176(4):339-45
pubmed: 8085657
Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2017 Sep;13(3):272-277
pubmed: 28577061
Forensic Sci Int. 2020 Dec;317:110512
pubmed: 33002654
Biomed Res Int. 2020 Dec 11;2020:6670590
pubmed: 33381573
Forensic Sci Int. 2013 Sep 10;231(1-3):401.e1-4
pubmed: 23806342