The applicability of the original and revised Demirjian standards to age estimations of 5-15 year old Indian children.

Q3 Medicine
S Hegde, A Patodia, U Dixit
{"title":"The applicability of the original and revised Demirjian standards to age estimations of 5-15 year old Indian children.","authors":"S Hegde,&nbsp;A Patodia,&nbsp;U Dixit","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Demirjian method has been the most widely tested method for the estimation of the dental age of children and adolescents. However, only three studies have compared Demirjian's original and revised seven-tooth methods, four-tooth method and alternate four-tooth method, none of them conducted on an Indian population.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>The present study aimed to compare the applicability of the original and revised seven-tooth and four-tooth and alternate four-tooth standards for age estimation of 1200 Indian children aged 5-15 years old.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>The study was designed as a retrospective cross-sectional study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Demirjian's original seven-tooth method overestimated age by 0.64 ± 1.44, 0.75 ± 1.50 and 0.69 ± 1.46 years in boys, girls and the total sample, respectively. Demirjian's revised seven-tooth method overestimated age by + 0.24 ± 0.80, + 0.11 ± 0.81 and + 0.19 ± 0.80 years in boys, girls and the total sample, respectively. Demirjian's original four-tooth method overestimated age by 0.79 ± 1.59, 0.59 ± 2.77 and 0.72 ± 2.30 years in boys, girls and the total sample, respectively. Demirjian's alternate four-tooth method overestimated age by 1.31 ± 1.07, 1.20 ± 1.10 and 1.26 ± 1.08 years in boys, girls and the total sample, respectively. Statistically significant differences were observed between dental and chronological ages with all methods (p <0.001).  Significant gender-based differences were observed only with Demirjian's revised seven-tooth and original four-tooth methods (p <0.05).  Conclusion: The revised seven-tooth standards most accurately predicted the age of the study sample (mean prediction error = 2.28 months), followed by the original seven-tooth, four-tooth and alternate four-tooth standards. The Demirjian original seven-tooth method was significantly more accurate in boys compared to girls, while the reverse was true for the Demirjian revised seven-tooth and original four-tooth methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":35728,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Forensic Odonto-Stomatology","volume":"36 1","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6195945/pdf/JFOS-36-1-1.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Forensic Odonto-Stomatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Demirjian method has been the most widely tested method for the estimation of the dental age of children and adolescents. However, only three studies have compared Demirjian's original and revised seven-tooth methods, four-tooth method and alternate four-tooth method, none of them conducted on an Indian population.

Aim: The present study aimed to compare the applicability of the original and revised seven-tooth and four-tooth and alternate four-tooth standards for age estimation of 1200 Indian children aged 5-15 years old.

Design: The study was designed as a retrospective cross-sectional study.

Results: Demirjian's original seven-tooth method overestimated age by 0.64 ± 1.44, 0.75 ± 1.50 and 0.69 ± 1.46 years in boys, girls and the total sample, respectively. Demirjian's revised seven-tooth method overestimated age by + 0.24 ± 0.80, + 0.11 ± 0.81 and + 0.19 ± 0.80 years in boys, girls and the total sample, respectively. Demirjian's original four-tooth method overestimated age by 0.79 ± 1.59, 0.59 ± 2.77 and 0.72 ± 2.30 years in boys, girls and the total sample, respectively. Demirjian's alternate four-tooth method overestimated age by 1.31 ± 1.07, 1.20 ± 1.10 and 1.26 ± 1.08 years in boys, girls and the total sample, respectively. Statistically significant differences were observed between dental and chronological ages with all methods (p <0.001).  Significant gender-based differences were observed only with Demirjian's revised seven-tooth and original four-tooth methods (p <0.05).  Conclusion: The revised seven-tooth standards most accurately predicted the age of the study sample (mean prediction error = 2.28 months), followed by the original seven-tooth, four-tooth and alternate four-tooth standards. The Demirjian original seven-tooth method was significantly more accurate in boys compared to girls, while the reverse was true for the Demirjian revised seven-tooth and original four-tooth methods.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

原始和修订的Demirjian标准对5-15岁印度儿童年龄估计的适用性。
背景:Demirjian法是目前应用最广泛的估计儿童和青少年牙龄的方法。然而,只有三项研究比较了Demirjian的原始和修订的七齿法、四齿法和替代四齿法,没有一项是在印度人群中进行的。目的:本研究旨在比较原始和修订的七牙、四牙和交替四牙标准在1200名5-15岁印度儿童年龄估计中的适用性。设计:本研究设计为回顾性横断面研究。结果:Demirjian原始七牙法对男孩、女孩和总样本的年龄分别高估0.64±1.44岁、0.75±1.50岁和0.69±1.46岁。Demirjian修正的七牙法对男孩、女孩和总样本的年龄分别高估了+ 0.24±0.80岁、+ 0.11±0.81岁和+ 0.19±0.80岁。Demirjian的原始四牙法对男孩、女孩和总样本的年龄分别高估了0.79±1.59岁、0.59±2.77岁和0.72±2.30岁。Demirjian四齿交替法对男孩、女孩和总样本的年龄分别高估1.31±1.07岁、1.20±1.10岁和1.26±1.08岁。所有方法的牙龄和实足年龄均有统计学差异(p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Forensic Odonto-Stomatology
Journal of Forensic Odonto-Stomatology Medicine-Pathology and Forensic Medicine
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: The Journal of Forensic Odonto-Stomatology is the official publication of the: INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION FOR FORENSIC ODONTO-STOMATOLOGY (I.O.F.O.S
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信