Performance of different dental age estimation methods on Saudi children.

Q3 Medicine
N N AlOtaibi, S J AlQahtani
{"title":"Performance of different dental age estimation methods on Saudi children.","authors":"N N AlOtaibi,&nbsp;S J AlQahtani","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":35728,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Forensic Odonto-Stomatology","volume":"41 1","pages":"27-46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10319098/pdf/JFOS-41-1-27.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

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.

不同牙龄估计方法在沙特儿童中的表现。
目的:评估和比较六种牙齿年龄估计方法(Moorrees, Fanning and Hunt, Demirjian, Gleiser and Hunt, Nolla, Chaillet等人和Nicodemo等人)在沙特儿童样本上的表现。方法:本横断面研究基于400份存档的沙特6 - 15.99岁健康儿童(男女各200张)数字全景x线片样本的评估。2018-2021年期间获得的全景x线照片来自沙特阿拉伯利雅得沙特国王大学牙科诊所的信息技术部。采用六种牙龄估计方法对左侧双颌发育中的恒牙进行牙龄评估。每一种方法的准确性都与实际年龄有关,并对这些方法进行了比较。结果:在所有测试方法中,年龄与牙龄之间存在显著差异(p)。结论:在沙特受试者中,Demirjian法的准确率最高,其次是Moorrees法、Fanning法和Hunt法。Nicodemo等人和Chaillet等人提出的方法精度最低。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信