Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Apr 30;41(1):27-46.

Performance of different dental age estimation methods on Saudi children

N N AlOtaibi  1 , S J AlQahtani  2
Affiliations

Performance of different dental age estimation methods on Saudi children

N N AlOtaibi et al. J Forensic Odontostomatol. .

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate and compare the performance of six dental age estimation methods (Moorrees, Fanning and Hunt, Demirjian, Gleiser and Hunt, Nolla, Chaillet et al., and Nicodemo et al.) on a sample of Saudi children.

Method: This cross-sectional study was based on the evaluation of a sample of 400 archived digital panoramic radiographs of healthy Saudi children (200 each from boys and girls) aged 6 to 15.99 years. Panoramic radiographs acquired during 2018-2021 were obtained from the information technology department of the dental clinics at King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Dental age was evaluated using the six dental age estimation methods on the developing permanent dentition in both jaws of the left side. The accuracy of each method was assessed in relation to chronological age, and a comparison between these methods was made.

Result: For all the tested methods, significant differences were found between chronological and dental age (P<0.001). The mean difference between dental and chronological age was (-2.19 years) for Chaillet et al. method, (0.15 years) for the Demirjian method, (-1.01 years) for the Moorrees, Fanning and Hunt method, (-1.72 years) for Nicodemo et al. method, (-1.29 years) for Nolla method, and (-1.00 years) for Gleiser and Hunt method.

Conclusion: Among the tested methods, the accuracy in Saudi subjects was the highest for Demirjian's method, followed by the Moorrees, Fanning and Hunt method. The methods proposed by Nicodemo et al., and Chaillet et al., were the least accurate.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Box plot for the bias observed for each method
Figure 2
Figure 2
Box plot for the bias observed for each method stratified by sex
Figure 3
Figure 3
Bland-Altman plot the real age and estimated age for Chaillet et al. method
Figure 4
Figure 4
Box plot for the bias of Chaillet et al method stratified by sex and age
Figure 5
Figure 5
Bland-Altman plot the real age and estimated age for Demirjian method
Figure 6
Figure 6
Box plot for the bias of Demirjian method stratified by sex and age
Figure 7
Figure 7
Bland-Altman plot the real age and estimated age for MFH method
Figure 8
Figure 8
Box plot for the bias of MFH method stratified by sex and age
Figure 9
Figure 9
Bland-Altman plot the real age and estimated age for Nicodemo et al method
Figure 10
Figure 10
Box plot for the bias of Nicodemo et al. method stratified by sex and age
Figure 11
Figure 11
Bland-Altman plot the real age and estimated age for Nolla method
Figure 12
Figure 12
Box plot for the bias of Nolla method stratified by sex and age
Figure 13
Figure 13
Bland-Altman plot the real age and estimated age for Gleiser and Hunt method
Figure 14
Figure 14
Box plot for the bias of Gleiser and Hunt stratified by sex and age
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Adams C, Carabott R, Evans S. Forensic Odontology: An Essential Guide. Wiley; 2014.
    1. Demirjian A, Goldstein H, Tanner JM. A new system of dental age assessment. Hum Biol. 1973;45(2):211–27. - PubMed
    1. Miklosi A, Miklósi Á. The genetic contribution to behaviour. Dog Behav Evol Cogn. 2015;76(7):346–68.
    1. Moorrees CFA, Fanning EA, Hunt EE. Age variation of formation stages for ten permanent teeth. J Dent Res. 1963;42(6):1490–502. 10.1177/00220345630420062701 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Uzuner FD, Kaygısız E, Darendeliler N. Defining dental age for chronological age determination. Post Mortem Examination and Autopsy - Current Issues From Death to Laboratory Analysis. 2018.