alexa The accuracy of three methods of age estimation using radiographic measurements of developing teeth.
General Science

General Science

Journal of Forensic Research

Author(s): Liversidge HM, Lyons F, Hector MP

Abstract Share this page

Abstract The accuracy of age estimation using three quantitative methods of developing permanent teeth was investigated. These were Mörnstad et al. [Scand. J. Dent. Res. 102 (1994) 137], Liversidge and Molleson [J. For. Sci. 44 (1999) 917] and Carels et al. [J. Biol. Bucc. 19 (1991) 297]. The sample consisted of 145 white Caucasian children (75 girls, 70 boys) aged between 8 and 13 years. Tooth length and apex width of mandibular canine, premolars and first and second molars were measured from orthopantomographs using a digitiser. These data were substituted into equations from the three methods and estimated age was calculated and compared to chronological age. Age was under-estimated in boys and girls using all the three methods; the mean difference between chronological and estimated ages for method I was -0.83 (standard deviation +/-0.96) years for boys and -0.67 (+/-0.76) years for girls; method II -0.79 (+/-0.93) and -0.63 (+/-0.92); method III -1.03 (+/-1.48) and -1.35 (+/-1.11) for boys and girls, respectively. Further analysis of age cohorts, found the most accurate method to be method I for the age group 8.00-8.99 years where age could be predicted to 0.14+/-0.44 years (boys) and 0.10+/-0.32 years (girls). Accuracy was greater for younger children compared to older children and this decreased with age.
This article was published in Forensic Sci Int and referenced in Journal of Forensic Research

Relevant Expert PPTs

Relevant Speaker PPTs

Recommended Conferences

Peer Reviewed Journals
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version