• B K Apaydin and F Yasar.
• Pamukkale University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Maxillofacial Radiology, Denizli, Turkey.
• Niger J Clin Pract. 2018 Mar 1; 21 (3): 257-263.

Background And AimAge estimation plays a significant role in forensic science, archeology, pediatric endocrinology and clinical dentistry. Tooth development is a reliable pathway for age estimation, especially in children. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the Demirjian method (DM), Willems method (WM) and Cameriere method (CM).Materials And MethodsThis study included panaramic radiographs of 330 individuals (165 girls, 165 boys) aged between 5 and 15.90 years. The differences between chronological age (CA) and the estimated dental age (DA) were statistically tested using a paired sample t-test and the Wilcoxon signed rank test.ResultsThe mean prediction error showed that; the DM overestimated the DA by 0.304 years, the WM underestimated the DA by -0.060 years and the CM underestimated the DA by -0.580 years. The difference between CA and estimated DA was not statistically significant according to WM (p = 0.074) and statistically significant according to DM and CM (p < 0.001).ConclusionIn conclusion, this study indicated that WM determines DA satisfactorily in a Turkish subpopulation.

18 keywords...

hide…