Timing of Demirjian's tooth formation stages

University of Adelaide, Tarndarnya, South Australia, Australia
Annals of Human Biology (Impact Factor: 1.15). 07/2006; 33(4):454-70. DOI: 10.1080/03014460600802387
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Global differences in Demirjian et al.'s method of assessing dental maturity are thought to be due to population differences.
The aim of this study was to investigate the timing of individual tooth formation stages in children from eight countries.
This was a meta-analysis of previously published data from retrospective cross-sectional studies of dental maturity.
Data of mandibular permanent developing teeth from panoramic radiographs (Demirjian's stages) were combined from Australia, Belgium, Canada, England, Finland, France, South Korea and Sweden (n = 9002, ages 2-16.99 years). Age-of-attainment was calculated using logistic regression for each group by sex and meta-analysis of the total. Overlapping 95% confidence intervals of the means was interpreted as no significant difference.
Mean ages for each group and total were significantly different in 65 out of 509 comparisons (p < 0.05). Some of these were of small sample size but there was no consistent pattern. Apex closure of the first molar was significantly later in children from Quebec and this might explain differences found in the dental maturity score.
These results suggest no major differences in the timing of tooth formation stages between these children. This fails to explain previous findings of differences using Demirjian's dental maturity method.

Download full-text


Available from: Helen M Liversidge, Jun 30, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dental age estimation charts are frequently used to assess maturity and estimate age. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of estimating age of three dental development charts (Schour and Massler, Ubelaker, and the London Atlas). The test sample was skeletal remains and dental radiographs of known-age individuals (N = 1,506, prenatal to 23.94 years). Dental age was estimated using charts of Schour and Massler, Ubelaker, and The London Atlas. Dental and chronological ages were compared using a paired t-test for the three methods. The absolute mean difference between dental and chronological age was calculated. Results show that all three methods under-estimated age but the London Atlas performed better than Schour and Massler and Ubelaker in all measures. The mean difference for Schour and Massler and Ubelaker was -0.76 and -0.80 years (SD 1.27 year, N = 1,227) respectively and for the London Atlas was -0.10 year (SD 0.97 year, N = 1,429). Further analysis by age category showed similar accuracy for all three methods for individuals younger than 1 year. For ages 1-18, the mean difference between dental and chronological ages was significant (P < 0.05) for Schour and Massler and Ubelaker and not significant (P > 0.05) for the London Atlas for most age categories. These findings show that the London Atlas performs better than Schour and Massler and Ubelaker and represents a substantial improvement in accuracy of dental age estimation from developing teeth. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    American Journal of Physical Anthropology 01/2014; DOI:10.1002/ajpa.22473 · 2.51 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It has long been assumed that population differences exist in dental maturity but most reference data describe tooth formation in children of European origin. This research is part of a comparative study of tooth formation in world groups and the application of reference data to estimate age. Objective: To investigate if population differences and sex differences in dental maturity influence the average age of tooth stages. Methods: The developing permanent mandibular teeth were assessed from archived dental radiographs (N=8221) of individuals in UK, Nigeria, South Africa, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Australia and Canada. Age range was 2-25 years. Average age of individual tooth stages was calculated and compared between ethnic groups and males and females. Results were compared with a collaborative study of tooth formation in children of European origin in seven countries (N=9002). Results: Population differences in dental maturity were small and the age variation for each tooth stage within each group was considerable. Sex differences were also small, except for canine and third molar roots. Estimating dental age is always done at the individual level and the 95% confidence interval of estimated age is calculated using the standard deviation. Increasing the sample size tenfold did not reduce the standard deviation of mean age of individual tooth stages. These findings show that accuracy and precision of age estimation are hampered by the large age variation in dental maturity. Conclusion: Population specific and sex specific dental maturity reference data do not reduce the age variation in tooth formation and are unlikely to improve accuracy or precision of age estimation.
    British Society for Oral and Dental Research 2011; 09/2011
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Developing teeth are used to assess maturity and estimate age in several disciplines. The aim of the study was to determine which of the most well known dental age estimation methods was best at estimating age. The target sample of dental radiographs (N = 946, ages 3–16) was described by Maber et al. (Forensic Sci Int 159 (2006) S68–S73). Seven mandibular permanent teeth (I1–M2) were assessed, and dental age was calculated using four dental maturity scales and fifteen methods that use data for individual teeth. The mean difference between dental age and real age was calculated (bias) as well as several other measures of accuracy (mean/median absolute difference, percentage aged to within six months and to within 10% of real age). Most methods estimated age with significant bias and standard deviation of bias ranged from 0.86 to 1.03 years. Analysis by age group showed most methods over-aged younger children, and considerably under-aged older children. The method that performed best was the dental maturity scale of Willems et al. (J Forensic Sci 46 (2001) 893–895) with bias of −0.14 ± 0.86 years (N = 827), mean absolute difference of 0.66 years, 71% aged to 10% or less of age, and 49% aged to within six months. Two individual teeth, P2 and M2, estimated age with bias not significantly different to zero for most formation stages using methods based on a large reference sample (L9a Demirjian stages) and a uniform age distribution (N25a Moorrees stages). Standard deviation of bias was least for early crown stages and most for late root stages. Methods that average ages for individual teeth improve if schedules for ‘mean age entering a stage’ are adjusted for prediction. Methods that directly calculate ‘mean age within stage’ can be improved by drawing from a uniform age distribution.
    American Journal of Physical Anthropology 12/2010; 143(4):545-54. DOI:10.1002/ajpa.21349 · 2.51 Impact Factor