Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Estimating dental age of New Zealand juveniles and subadults using Demirjian's method

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reference data for dental age estimate is sparse in New Zealand (NZ), with only two contemporary studies. Te Moananui et al. (J For Sci. 53(2), 2008) presented modified Demirjian percentile curves to estimate dental age of Pasifika, Māori, and European males and females (n = 1383), while Timmins et al. (Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 8:101–8, 2012) found the Demirjian method (1973) was valid for a smaller sample (n = 200) of unknown ancestry. The study presented here sought to validate the Demirjian and the Te Moananui methods for a sample of the NZ population of unknown ancestry and a subgroup of known ancestry i.e., Pasifika, Māori and European, for males and females. The Demirjian method (1976) was applied to the current study's sample consisting of 3523 individuals aged 4 to < 20 years. The seven left mandibular teeth (third molar excluded) and tooth scores were summed for each individual, with the Te Moananui methods applied to this subgroup. The results revealed these methods to be less than ideal for estimating dental age of the NZ sample, for both males and females. The probit regression form of Transition Analysis (TA) was employed to calculate the mean age entering each tooth stage, for the seven teeth, to reduce age mimicry that is commonly associated with traditional regression analysis. TA results revealed Pasifika and Māori individuals to be more advanced than Caucasian individuals. The sex groups were also compared to the mean ages presented by Demirjian and Levesque with mixed results (J Dent Res. 59(7):1110–22, 1980), highlighting the need for more research in this area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

N/A.

Notes

  1. Te Moananui use the term European in their study and is used here for consistency, whereas elsewhere in this paper the term Caucasian is used instead.

  2. FDI notation of teeth.

  3. 31 = I1, 32 = I2, 33 = C, 34 = PM1, 35 = PM2, 36 = M1, 37 = M2.

References

  1. Demirjian A, Goldstein TJ. A new system of dental age assessment. Hum Biol. 1973;45:211–27.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Demirjian A, Goldstein H. New systems for dental maturity based on seven and four teeth. Hum Biol. 1976;3(5):411–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014467600001671.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Jayaraman J, et al. Development of a reference data set (RDS) for dental age estimation (DAE) and testing of this with a separate validation set (VS) in a southern Chinese population. J Forensic Leg Med. 2016;43:26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2016.07.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Roberts G, Lucas V, McDonald F. Age estimation in the living: Dental age estimation – theory and practice. Encycl Forensic Leg Med. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800034-2.00007-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Te Moananui R, et al. Estimating age in Maori, Pacific Island, and European children from New Zealand. J For Sci. 2008;53(2).

  6. Blenkin M. Forensic dentistry and its application in age estimation from the teeth using a modified Demirjian system. Thesis doctoral 2006. University of Sydney, NSW, Australia. Available at: https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/5036.

  7. Blenkin M, Evans W. Age estimation from the teeth using a modified Demirjian system. J For Sci. 2010;55(6):1504–8.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mincer H, Harris E, Berryman H. The A.B.F.O. study of third molar development and its use as an estimator of chronological age. J For Sci. 1993;38(2):379–90.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bassed R, Briggs C, Drummer O. Age estimation using CT imaging of the third molar tooth, the medial clavicular epiphysis, and the spheno-occipital synchondrosis: a multifactorial approach. For Sci Int. 2011;212(1):273.e1-273e5.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Olze A, et al. Validation of common classification systems for assessing the mineralization of third molars. Int J Legal Med. 2005;119(1):22–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-004-0489-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kanagaratnam S, Schluter P. The age of permanent tooth emergence in children of different ethnic origin in the Auckland region: a cross-sectional study. N Z Dent J. 2012;108(No. 2 June):55–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Timmins K, et al. The usefulness of dental and cervical maturation stages in New Zealand children for Disaster Victim Identification. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2012;8:101–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Te Moananui R. Dental Age of New Zealand Adolescents [Unpublished master's thesis]. University of Otago. 2006.

  14. Demirjian A. Dental development. CD-ROM. 1993. Montreal: Silver Platter Education.

  15. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Liversidge H. Interpreting group differences using demirjian’s dental maturity method. For Sci Int. 2010;201(1):95–101.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tangmose S, et al. Age estimation in the living: Transition analysis on developing third molars. For Sci Int. 2015;257:512.e1–512.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.07.049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Acharya AB. Accuracy of predicting 18 years of age from mandibular third molar development in an Indian sample using Demirjian’s ten-stage criteria. Int J Legal Med. 2011;125(2):227–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-010-0522-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Prince DA, Konigsberg LW. New formulae for estimating age-at-death in the Balkans utilizing Lamendin’s dental technique and Bayesian analysis. J For Sci. 2008;53(3):578–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00713.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Konigsberg LW. Multivariate cumulative probit for age estimation using ordinal categorical data’. Hum Biol. 2015;42(4):368–78. https://doi.org/10.3109/03014460.2015.1045430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Boldsen J, et al. Transition Analysis: A new method for estimating age from skeletons.In: Hoppa RD, Vaupel JW, editors. Paleodemography. Age distributions from skeletal samples. Cambridge. 2002:73–106. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511542428.005.

  22. Demirjian A, Levesque G. Sexual differences in dental development and prediction of emergence. J Dent Res. 1980;59(7):1110–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Elamin F, Hector MP, Liversidge HM. The timing of mandibular tooth formation in two African groups’. Hum Biol. 2017;44(3):261–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014460.2016.1213313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Liversidge HM, Smith BH, Maber M. Bias and accuracy of age estimation using developing teeth in 946 children. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2010;43(4):545–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.21349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fanning EA. A longitudinal study of tooth formation and root resorption. NZ Dental Journal. 1961;57:202–17.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Konigsberg LW, et al. Estimation and evidence in forensic anthropology: Age-at-death. J For Sci. 2008;53(3):541–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00710.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Moorrees CFA, Fanning EA, Hunt HE. Age variation of formation stages for ten permanent teeth. J Dent Res. 1963;42:1490–502.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Konigsberg LW, Frankenberg SR, Liversidge HM. Status of mandibular third molar development as evidence in legal age threshold cases. J For Sci. 2019;64(3):680–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Home Office United Kingdom. Biological evaluation methods to assist in assessing the age of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. 2022. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/methods-to-assess-the-age-of-unaccompanied-asylum-seeking-children/biological-evaluation-methods-to-assist-in-assessing-the-age-of-unaccompanied-asylum-seeking-children-accessible. Accessed 12 June 2023

  30. Schmeling A, et al. Forensische altersdiagnostik : Methoden, aussagesicherheit, rechtsfragen. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016;113(4):44–50. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2016.0044.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Professor Helen Liversidge and Professor Lyle Konigsberg for their advice on statistical questions, and to Dr. Hugh Trengrove for his clinical assistance.

Funding

No funds, grants, or other support was received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Baylis Dental Services Ltd, 41 Maunu Rd, Whangarei, 0110, Northland, New Zealand

    Stephanie Baylis

  2. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Joanna F. Dipnall

  3. Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation, School of Medicine Deakin University, Geelong, Australia

    Joanna F. Dipnall

  4. Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine and the Department of Forensic medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    Richard Bassed

Authors
  1. Stephanie Baylis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joanna F. Dipnall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard Bassed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

N/A.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie Baylis.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This research study was conducted retrospectively from data obtained for clinical purposes and considered low risk. Ethics approval was sought from and approved by Auckland Health Research Ethics Committee (NZ). Reference number: 000110.

Consent

N/A.

Conflict of interests

The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Classifications

10: Forensics/ 10.010:Pathology 10.030:Science 10.070:Identification 10.090:Anthropology 10.200Mass Fatalities 10.210:Odontology.

Appended Tables

Appended Tables

Table 8 Mean age entering tooth stages—Females vs Males
Full size table
Table 9 Comparison of Mean Age entering tooth stages between the Demirjian (1980)* and the NZ samples—Females vs Males
Full size table
Table 10 Comparison of the absolute difference of means and difference of means between CA and three DAE methods: Pasifika Females
Full size table
Table 11 Comparison of the absolute difference of means and difference of means between CA and three DAE methods: Māori Females
Full size table
Table 12 Comparison of the absolute difference of means and difference of means between CA and three DAE methods: European Females
Full size table
Table 13 Comparison of the absolute difference of means and difference of means between CA and three DAE methods: Pasifika Males
Full size table
Table 14 Comparison of the absolute difference of means and difference of means between CA and three DAE methods: Māori Males
Full size table
Table 15 Comparison of the differences of means between CA and three DAE methods: European Males
Full size table
Table 16 Average absolute mean differences (yrs) for females and males for each ancestral group
Full size table
Table 17 Comparison of mean ages entering tooth stages between three NZ ancestral groups and the 1980 Demirjian sample—Female
Full size table
Table 18 Comparison of mean ages entering tooth stages between three NZ ancestral groups and the 1980 Demirjian sample—Male
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baylis, S., Dipnall, J.F. & Bassed, R. Estimating dental age of New Zealand juveniles and subadults using Demirjian's method. Forensic Sci Med Pathol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-024-00803-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-024-00803-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation