Abstract
After dentition is complete, degenerative tooth characteristics can be used for dental age assessment. Radiological assessment of the visibility of the root canals of the mandibular third molars in dental panoramic radiographs (DPRs) is known to be one such suitable feature. Essentially, two different stage classifications are available for evaluating the visibility of the root canals of mandibular third molars in the DPR. The aim of this study was to determine if one method outperforms the other. Therefore, the 2010 method of Olze et al. was directly compared to the 2017 method of Lucas et al. in the 2020 modification of Al Qattan et al. To this end, 233 DPRs from 116 females and 117 males aged 20.0 to 40.9 years were evaluated by three independent experienced examiners. In addition, one examiner ran two independent evaluations. Correlation between age and stage was investigated, and the inter- and intra-rater reliability was estimated for both methods. Correlation between age and stage was higher with the Olze method (Spearman rho 0.388 [95% CI 0.309, 0.462], males and 0.283 [95% CI 0.216, 0.357], females) than the Lucas method (0.212 [95% CI 0.141, 0.284], males and 0.265 [95% CI 0.193, 0.340], females). The intra-rater repeatability of the Olze method (Krippendorff’s α = 0.576 [95% CI 0.508, 0.644], males and α = 0.592 [95% CI 0.523, 0.661], females) was greater than that for the Lucas method (intra-rater α = 0.422 [95% CI 0.382, 0.502], males and α = 0.516 [95% CI 0.523, 0.661], females). Inter-rater reproducibility was also greater for the Olze method (α = 0.542 [95% CI 0.463, 0.620], males and α = 0.533 [95% CI 0.451, 0.615], females) compared to the Lucas method (α = 0.374 [95% CI 0.304, 0.443], males and α = 0.432 [95% CI 0.359, 0.505], females). The method of Olze et al. was found to present marginal advantages to the Lucas et al. method across all examinations and may be a more appropriate method for application in future studies.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Forensic age assessment of living persons can, with a well-known, statistical margin of uncertainty, determine the chronological age of a person [1, 2]. By doing so, forensic age assessment today is able to regularly show that legally relevant age limits have been passed with a probability bordering on certainty [1]. Thus, forensic age assessment may represent an effective means of ensuring age-appropriate proceedings. This includes, in particular, securing the special status of unaccompanied minor refugees [3,4,5,6].
Forensic age estimation will continue to play an important role, particularly in view of increasing migration movements and the associated rise in the number of persons of undetermined age [7]. This is also reflected in the fact that forensic age assessment has become a focus of research in the forensic sciences [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19].
According to the Study Group on Forensic Age Diagnostics recommendations for performing age assessments, an examination of the dental status should always be included [20]. Dental panoramic radiographs (DPRs; also PAN or orthopantomograms (OPGs) [21]) are routinely used for this purpose. The mineralization and eruption of the third molars are assessed, and the findings are compared with a reference population [22, 23]. However, when the legal age of majority is determined by a limit at 18 years [24], this poses a challenge with the use of tooth development for evaluating age, since tooth development, including the third molar, can be completed before the age of 18 [25]. Thus, the detection of this often decisive age limit with features of tooth development is not possible with the highest level of certainty. After completion of tooth development, degenerative tooth characteristics can be used for age assessment [26,27,28,29]. A major disadvantage in using degenerative tooth characteristics in age assessment compared to tooth development characteristics is that they are far more susceptible to external influences. While tooth development is thought to be essentially genetically determined [30,31,32,33], degenerative tooth characteristics can be significantly influenced by diet, habit, medication, or disease [34,35,36,37,38]. Accordingly, it must be carefully examined in each individual case whether it is an age-associated degenerative process or a pathological process. Corresponding pathological teeth must then not be used for age assessment.
A variety of degenerative tooth characteristics have been reported in the past, which can be used for age assessment [26, 39,40,41,42,43,44]. One such feature is the decrease in visibility of the root canals or root pulp of mandibular third molars on DPR. The principal suitability of the feature for age assessment can be regarded as assured today, as evidenced by large studies [40, 45,46,47,48,49,50]. The obstruction of the root canals is a purely optical phenomenon [40]. One may suppose that the canals will actually not close completely, as this would not be compatible with the vitality of the tooth. The physiological mechanism of this phenomenon is not conclusively clarified. It can be assumed that secondary dentin formation in the pulp and the associated actual reduction in the size of the root pulp play a role [51]. On the other hand, changes in the bone or tooth structure may have an influence on the feature. For example, the decrease in diameter of dentinal tubules particularly near the pulp and the accompanying densification of dentin over the course of life have been documented [44, 52, 53]. This may influence the radiopacity of the dentin and thus the radiological representation of the fine root pulp. Increases in the amount of fiber in the pulp can also have a radiographic effect [53], as can increasing cementum apposition at the tooth root, which increases with age [54].
In 2020, Rachwal et al. conducted a pilot study to determine whether buccal bone thickness influences the evaluation of root canal visibility in age assessment [55]. The authors acknowledged that their small sample (n = 17) was not sufficient to determine a dependence of age on buccal bone thickness in the area of the third molars. The authors concluded by stating that positioning errors in the DPR may well have led to site differences in the feature, as achieving perfect symmetry in the DPR is very difficult. Rachwal et al. saw potential advantages in using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) [55]. However, age has no influence on the bone thickness of the whole bone in the jaw angle [56]. This is important for using DPR, because, as a summation image, lingual and buccal bone on both sides of the root canal probably determine its visibility. Overall, decreases in radiographic visibility of third molar root canals thus seem to summarize a multitude of age-associated degenerative dental changes and furthermore probably remain strongly dependent on positioning errors of the examined person in the DPR.
Two different stage classifications are available in the literature for evaluating the visibility of the third molar root canals in the DPR. In 2010, a first staging was presented by Olze et al. In 2017, Lucas et al. presented their own new classification where they themselves called it a modification of the Olze method [40, 50]. A group of authors around Al Qattan, which included Lucas herself, published a slightly modified version of the method in 2020, in which a specified inaccuracy of the 2017 version was eliminated [49]. This revised version from 2020, referred to in this report and Al Qattan et al. themselves, as the “Lucas method,” is the basis for the present work.
How the two methods of Olze and Lucas compare and whether one classification is superior to the other need to be thoroughly investigated. The present study, therefore, compared the two classifications in terms of the correlation of stages with age and the reliability of each classification.
Material and method
The DPRs came from a university dental clinic (Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia region, Germany). The selection of the sample for the present comparison study was guided by pertinent studies within the extant literature of the subject domain. Subsequently, the current investigation aimed to achieve a cohort size of 200 cases, taking into account all age cohorts [23, 57]. In order to accommodate for potential subsequent exclusions, the targeted number of DPRs was initially increased to a total of 300. Inclusion criteria were that the quality of the images had to support assessment of the roots of teeth 38 [FDI] and 48. In addition, the teeth had to be completely mineralized, as determined by attaining stage H of the tooth development scale by Demirjian et al. [22]. Moreover, the teeth had to be free of pathologies such as caries or restorations.
The dental clinic comprised different departments. Therefore, the study population was composed of patients from dental surgery, orthodontics, prosthodontic, and conservative dentistry. In addition, the images, which had all been captured for a medical indication, were retrospectively evaluated in terms of the present research question.
The age of the participants at the time of the X-ray examination had to be known beyond doubt. Radiographs were assessed in DICOM format using synedra Personal View software version 22.0.0.1 (synedra information technologies GmbH, Innsbruck, Austria) at appropriate radiology workstations. The technical setup as well as the ambience was the same for all three examiners. For the evaluations, the software’s magnification tool and the gray-level adjustment tool were routinely used. The examiners were three board-certified dentists.
The evaluations were performed according to the following classifications:
-
Olze et al. (2010) (“Olze”) [40]
-
Stage 0 = the lumen of all root canals is visible all the way to apex
-
Stage 1 = the lumen of one root canal is not fully visible to the apex
-
Stage 2 = the lumen of two root canals are not fully visible to the apex, or one canal may be virtually invisible in full length
-
Stage 3 = the lumen of two root canals is virtually invisible in full length
-
-
Al Qattan et al. (2020) (“Lucas”) [49]
-
RPV-A: > 75% of root pulp visible
-
RPV-B: 75 to 50% of root pulp visible
-
RPV-C: 50 to 25% of root pulp visible
-
RPV-D: < 25% of root pulp visible
-
-
[RPV = root pulp visibility]
Prior to the study, 50 independent images were randomly selected for training by the three examiners. Cases with a difference between examiners of more than one stage were discussed together and a common stage was determined. These evaluations were considered the benchmark for the actual determinations.
In the study, radiographs were evaluated in random order and independently. One examiner evaluated the entire dataset a second time. Data management and statistical analyses were performed in Stata, version 13.0 (Stata Corp LP, College Station, TX, USA). Tooth 38 and 48 staging was investigated as means of potentially classifying persons of unknown age into age groups. The distribution of ages was subsequently compared across the stages of each method. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient evaluated the correlation between age and stage. The degree to which rating might explain the variation in age for each sex was assessed through the adjusted coefficient of determination (adj-R2) from the regression of age on stage for each method and sex, with adjustment for tooth, and the specific proportion of variance explained (ω2) by rating. The repeatability of one rater examining each image twice in a random order and the reproducibility of all three raters rating each image once were investigated for each method as means of evaluating the reliability of each method. Fleiss’ kappa, k, and Krippendorff’s alpha [58], α, were evaluated as measures of agreement between (reproducibility) and within (repeatability) raters.
Results
According to the inclusion criteria, 233 DPRs from 116 females and 117 males aged 20.0 to 40.9 years were deemed acceptable for assessment in the study. Table 1 shows the composition of the study population according to age and sex.
For both classifications, all stages were detected in the studied cohort.
Both methods demonstrated only a weak correlation between stage and age (Table 2). Using the Olze method, the Spearman coefficient was higher for males (ρ = 0.388 [95% CI 0.309, 0.462]) than for females (ρ = 0.283 [95% CI 0.216, 0.357]). The correlation between age and stage was lower in the Lucas method, showing as well a lower correlation for males (ρ = 0.212 [95% CI 0.141, 0.284]) than for females (ρ = 0.265 [95% CI 0.193, 0.340]). According to the ω2 statistics from the regression of age on stage, the variation in age between the tooth data could be better explained by the Olze method in males (0.155 [95% CI 0.102, 0.202]) and females (0.141 [0.092, 0.189]), than by the Lucas method (0.045 (0.015, 0.078) and 0.092 (0.050, 0.134) for males and females, respectively.
The coefficient for intra-rater repeatability by our single examiner was higher for the Olze method than the Lucas method in the assessment of male third molars with Krippendorff α’s of 0.576 [95% CI 0.508, 0.644] and 0.442 [95% CI 0.382, 0.502], respectively (Table 3). Overall repeatability was higher for the Olze method, although in assessing female third molars, repeatability using the Olze method was only slightly greater (α = 0.592 [95% CI 0.523, 0.661]) than when using the Lucas method (α = 0.516 [95% CI 0.454, 0.578]).
The coefficient measuring inter-rater evaluation of all three examiners was higher for evaluations using the Olze method for both sexes compared to the Lucas method (Table 4). Evaluating the male third molars, the value for Krippendorf’s α of 0.542 (95% CI 0.463, 0.620) from the Olze method was considerably higher than that from the Lucas method at 0.374 (95% CI 0.304, 0.443). Among females, this difference between methods was smaller with a Krippendorf α of 0.533 (95% CI 0.451, 0.615) for Olze method compared to 0.432 (95% CI 0.359, 0.505) for the Lucas method.
Discussion
While there was only low correlation of both methods with age, our study found that age-related differences between the third molars could be more reliably evaluated with the Olze method than the Lucas method for both sexes, although this superiority was diminished when evaluating the third molars from females. The present study was explicitly intended to be a comparative study of the two methods under evaluation; it was not intended to provide a reference study for the characteristic of root canal visibility in the DPR. Therefore, statistical measures for the individual stages were omitted. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first direct comparative study of the two methods.
The method of Lucas et al. from 2017 was used as modified by Al Qattan et al. from 2020 [49]. In the original 2017 version, stage RPV-A was defined as “100% of root pulp visible” and stage RPV-D as “0% of root pulp visible” [50]. Stages RPV-B and RPV-C corresponded to the stages as applied in the present study. It was clear that in the 2017 version, the percentages from 0 to 25% and from 75 to 100% did not occur. Thus, the 2017 version is not practicable. Only the version published by Al Qattan et al. overcomes this constraint, which is why this method was also considered in the present study. Besides, both Lucas et al. and Al Qattan et al. used the original pictograms of Olze et al. to visualize the stages [40, 49, 50]. In the 2010 definition, Olze et al. stated “not fully visible” as a criterion in the written definition of the stages [40]. The corresponding pictogram showed a root canal that was not fully visible in the apical region. However, we found cases in which one or both root canals were not fully visible, whereby the invisible area was within the canal course and not only apically. Following the written definition of the stages, these cases were also evaluated as not fully visible for the corresponding stage. This was done especially in view of the fact that the phenomenon’s cause has not been clarified, and thus, a development from apical to coronal does not necessarily have to be given. Therefore, the pictograms were modified (see Fig. 1). The new pictograms also take into account that the boundary from visible to non-visible is usually not as smooth as in the original pictograms.
The reason for the difference in correlation with age between the two methods is not so easy to determine: the classifications have the same number of stages, and the lowest and highest stages are relatively similar [40, 49]. It can be assumed that the selected percentage steps, which are ultimately oriented to the number of stages with the steps in the 25% range, are not so well suited to represent the characteristic being investigated. Furthermore, the authors’ impression suggests that the final step at the highest stages for both methods has a noteworthy impact. In Lucas’ method, approximately a quarter of the root may still remain visible, while in Olze’s version, the root may be completely invisible.
In the case of reliability, the reason for the observed differences is easier to identify: it is difficult to determine the exact percentages, as required by Lucas. A distinction between 49% and 51% visibility, as would be strictly necessary for Lucas’ method, cannot be made in practice. The approach of Olze et al. is much more practicable. In particular, the approach which makes differentiated statements about the various root canals is more clearly applicable in practice. With Lucas, a percentage value must be given for both root canals combined. This makes a practical application even more difficult in our opinion.
Overall, it must be noted that the values for reliability in the current study were considerably lower than the values from the literature. Although it must be taken into account that in the present study Krippendorff’s alpha was chosen as a rather conservative statistic, the differences are clear [58, 59]. Thus, Lucas et al. in 2017 gave a kappa value of 0.89 for the intra-rater repeatability and 0.95 for the inter-rater reproducibility [50]. Al Qattan in 2020 reported kappa values of 0.86 for their estimated intra-rater repeatability and 0.88 for inter-rater reproducibility of the Lucas method [49]. Olze et al. did not make any statement on the reliability of their method in their 2010 publication [40].
In 2019, Akkaya et al. examined reliability for the Olze et al. method [60]. They found kappa values of 0.817 and 0.67 for the intra- and inter-rater agreement, respectively [60]. In 2017, Timme et al. published a reference study of the Olze et al. method [46]. At that time, they found kappa values of 0.72 (tooth 38) and 0.86 (tooth 48) for intra-rater agreement and a value of 0.67 (both teeth) for inter-rater agreement. The examiners in the 2017 study by Timme et al. were completely different from those in the current study [46]. The data from the 2017 study, in particular the value for the inter-rater agreement, were more similar to the data in the present study than those from Lucas et al. or from Al Qattan et al. [49, 50]. On the other hand, Guo et al. found better agreement statistics for the Olze method in 2018, reporting kappa values of 0.825 and 0.788 for the inter- and intra-rater, respectively [47].
The low values for inter-rater reliability relative to the literature are likely to be due to a combination of factors including differences in sampled populations, imaging setup and quality, experimental conditions, and differences in raters. The most important among these is that we compared three examiners in our study. In the existing literature, typically only two examiners were compared [46, 47, 49, 50, 60]. We assume that our results may, therefore, better reflect the conditions of the real world.
The reason for the lower intra-rater agreement relative to the other published studies remains elusive but is likely to be similarly multifactorial as with inter-rater agreement. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that, within the referenced works, there exists a singular absence of instances wherein the entire dataset underwent re-evaluation for the explicit purpose of ascertaining intra-rater agreement [46, 47, 49, 50, 60]. In one study, the dataset evaluated for intra-rater agreement was separate and not part of the actual study [49]. Notably, the datasets subject to assessment for intra-rater agreement in the cited studies encompassed a spectrum ranging from 50 to 100 radiographs [46, 47, 49, 60]. In one study, information concerning the second observer and the specific radiographs under scrutiny are absent [50].
Since visibility of root canals is an entirely optical phenomenon, it must be stated that the representation of the root canals ultimately also depends on the imaging method used [61]. The characteristic of visibility of the root canals of the third molars was investigated for the present study in the DPR. The DPR represents a very standardized radiographic procedure [62]. On the other hand, it is reported that the representation of the root canals in the cone-beam-CT (CBCT) is strongly dependent on the scan parameters [61]. Root canals that are invisible with one setting can be detectable after changing the parameters [61, 63]. This fact must therefore be taken into account, since the feature of root canal visibility has also been studied recently in CBCT [64, 65]. In the authors’ view, therefore, the reference values of 2D and 3D methods are not directly transferable. Instead, 3D methods can be used to directly determine the volume of the pulp chamber of a tooth and evaluate it for age assessment [12, 66,67,68,69,70,71].
Conclusion
In this comparative study, the 2010 method of Olze et al. showed higher correlation with age and was found to perform marginally better than the 2017 method of Lucas et al. in terms of intra- and inter-rater agreement. Also in light of the fact that the majority of previous studies used the Olze method, preference may be given to the Olze method for conducting further studies.
Data availability
The datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Schmeling A, Dettmeyer R, Rudolf E, Vieth V, Geserick G (2016) Forensic Age Estimation: Methods, Certainty, and the Law. Dtsch Arztebl Int. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2016.0044
Schmeling A, Olze A, Reisinger W, Geserick G (2001) Age estimation of living people undergoing criminal proceedings. Lancet 358:89–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05379-X
Rudolf E, Kramer J, Gebauer A, Bednar A, Recsey Z, Zehetmayr J, Bukal J, Winkler I (2015) Standardized medical age assessment of refugees with questionable minority claim-a summary of 591 case studies. Int J Legal Med 129:595–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-014-1122-x
Schmeling A, Geserick G, Tsokos M, Dettmeyer R, Rudolf E, Püschel K (2014) Aktuelle Diskussionen zur Altersdiagnostik bei unbegleiteten minderjährigen Flüchtlingen. Rechtsmedizin 24:475–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00194-014-0986-x
Olze A, Reisinger W, Geserick G, Schmeling A (2006) Age estimation of unaccompanied minors. Part II. Dental aspects. Forensic Sci Int 159:S65–S67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.02.018
Schmeling A, Reisinger W, Geserick G, Olze A (2006) Age estimation of unaccompanied minors. Part I. General considerations. Forensic Sci Int 159:S61–S64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.02.017
United Nations Publications (2018) World Migration Report 2018. Place of publication not identified, United Nations Pubns
Wilson YP, Nambiar P, Yaacob H, Asif MK (2021) Age estimation from developing third molars. Med Leg J 89:254–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/00258172211052930
Adserias-Garriga J (2019) Age estimation: a multidisciplinary approach. Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier, London, United Kingdom, San Diego, CA, United States
Timme M, Karch A, Shay D, Ottow C, Schmeling A (2020) The relevance of body mass index in forensic age assessment of living individuals: an age-adjusted linear regression analysis using multivariable fractional polynomials. Int J Legal Med 134:1861–1868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-020-02381-2
Graham R, Victoria SL (2021) Is the Demirjian, Goldstein, and Tanner Method of Dental Age Estimation Obsolete? A Cri Rev Re-Assess Insights Anthropol 5. https://doi.org/10.36959/763/519
Du H, Li G, Zheng Q, Yang J (2022) Population-specific age estimation in Black Americans and Chinese people based on pulp chamber volume of first molars from cone beam computed tomography. Int J Legal Med 136:811–819. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-022-02776-3
Franceschetti L, Merelli VG, Corona S, Magli F, Maggioni L, Cummaudo M, Tritella S, De Angelis D, Cattaneo C (2022) Analysis of interrater reliability in age assessment of minors: how does expertise influence the evaluation? Int J Legal Med 136:279–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-021-02707-8
Molina A, Bravo M, Fonseca GM, Márquez-Grant N, Martín-de-Las-Heras S (2021) Dental age estimation based on pulp chamber/crown volume ratio measured on CBCT images in a Spanish population. Int J Legal Med 135:359–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-020-02377-y
Zirk M, Zoeller JE, Lentzen M-P, Bergeest L, Buller J, Zinser M (2021) Comparison of two established 2D staging techniques to their appliance in 3D cone beam computer-tomography for dental age estimation. Sci Rep 11:9024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-88379-1
de Tobel J, Bauwens J, Parmentier G, Franco A, Pauwels N, Verstraete K, Thevissen P (2020) Magnetic resonance imaging for estimating chronological age in living children and young adults: a systematic review. Pediatr Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-020-04709-x
Bedek I, Dumančić J, Lauc T, Marušić M, Čuković-Bagić I (2020) New model for dental age estimation: Willems method applied on fewer than seven mandibular teeth. Int J Legal Med 134:735–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-019-02066-5
Hagen M, Schmidt S, Schulz R, Vieth V, Ottow C, Olze A, Pfeiffer H, Schmeling A (2020) Forensic age assessment of living adolescents and young adults at the Institute of Legal Medicine, Münster, from 2009 to 2018. Int J Legal Med 134:745–751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-019-02239-2
Hagen M, Schmidt S, Rudolf E, Schmeling A (2020) Die Aussagekraft sozialpädagogischer Altersschätzungen im Vergleich zur forensischen Altersdiagnostik. Rechtsmedizin. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00194-020-00403-2
Schmeling A, Grundmann C, Fuhrmann A, Kaatsch H-J, Knell B, Ramsthaler F, Reisinger W, Riepert T, Ritz-Timme S, Rösing FW, Rötzscher K, Geserick G (2008) Criteria for age estimation in living individuals. Int J Legal Med 122:457–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-008-0254-2
Boeddinghaus R, Whyte A (2006) Dental panoramic tomography: an approach for the general radiologist. Australas Radiol 50:526–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1673.2006.01651.x
Demirjian A, Goldstein H, Tanner JM (1973) A new system of dental age assessment. Hum Biol 45:211–227
Olze A, Peschke C, Schulz R, Ribbecke S, Schmeling A (2012) Beurteilung der Weisheitszahneruption: Vergleich von zwei Stadieneinteilungen. Rechtsmedizin 22:451–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00194-012-0845-6
Liversidge HM, Marsden PH (2010) Estimating age and the likelihood of having attained 18 years of age using mandibular third molars. Br Dent J 209:E13. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.976
Streckbein P, Reichert I, Verhoff MA, Bödeker R-H, Kähling C, Wilbrand J-F, Schaaf H, Howaldt H-P, May A (2014) Estimation of legal age using calcification stages of third molars in living individuals. Sci Justice 54:447–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2014.08.005
Gustafson G (1950) Age determination on teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 41:45–54
Olze A, Hertel J, Schulz R, Wierer T, Schmeling A (2012) Radiographic evaluation of Gustafson’s criteria for the purpose of forensic age diagnostics. Int J Legal Med 126:615–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-012-0701-y
Si X, Chu G, Olze A, Schmidt S, Schulz R, Chen T, Pfeiffer H, Guo Y, Schmeling A (2019) Age assessment in the living using modified Gustafson’s criteria in a northern Chinese population. Int J Legal Med. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-019-02024-1
Timme M, Timme WH, Olze A, Ottow C, Ribbecke S, Pfeiffer H, Dettmeyer R, Schmeling A (2017) Dental age estimation in the living after completion of third molar mineralization: new data for Gustafson’s criteria. Int J Legal Med 131:569–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-016-1492-3
Kreiborg S, Jensen BL (2018) Tooth formation and eruption—lessons learnt from cleidocranial dysplasia. Eur J Oral Sci 126(Suppl 1):72–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.12418
Wise GE, Frazier-Bowers S, D’Souza RN (2002) Cellular, molecular, and genetic determinants of tooth eruption. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 13:323–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/154411130201300403
Frazier-Bowers SA, Puranik CP, Mahaney MC (2010) The Etiology of Eruption Disorders—Further Evidence of a Genetic Paradigm. Semin Orthod 16:180–185. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2010.05.003
Wise GE, King GJ (2008) Mechanisms of tooth eruption and orthodontic tooth movement. J Dent Res 87:414–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910808700509
Bartlett D, O’Toole S (2019) Tooth wear and aging. Aust Dent J 64(Suppl 1):S59–S62. https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12681
Litonjua LA, Andreana S, Bush PJ, Cohen RE (2003) Tooth wear: attrition, erosion, and abrasion. Quintessence Int 34:435–446
López R, Smith PC, Göstemeyer G, Schwendicke F (2017) Ageing, dental caries and periodontal diseases. J Clin Periodontol 44(Suppl 18):S145–S152. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12683
Jia W, Zhao Y, Yang J, Wang W, Wang X, Ling L, Ge L (2016) Simvastatin promotes dental pulp stem cell-induced coronal pulp regeneration in pulpotomized teeth. J Endod 42:1049–1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.03.007
Nudel I, Pokhojaev A, Bitterman Y, Shpack N, Fiorenza L, Benazzi S, Sarig R (2021) Secondary dentin formation mechanism: the effect of attrition. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18:9961. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18199961
Solheim T (1992) Recession of periodontal ligament as an indicator of age. J Forensic Odontostomatol 10:32–42
Olze A, Solheim T, Schulz R, Kupfer M, Schmeling A (2010) Evaluation of the radiographic visibility of the root pulp in the lower third molars for the purpose of forensic age estimation in living individuals. Int J Legal Med 124:183–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-009-0415-y
Solheim T (1989) Dental root translucency as an indicator of age. Scand J Dent Res 97:189–197
Solheim T (1988) Dental color as an indicator of age. Gerodontics 4:114–118
Solheim T, Kvaal S (1993) Dental root surface structure as an indicator of age. J Forensic Odontostomatol 11:9–21
Kvaal SI, Koppang HS, Solheim T (1994) Relationship between age and deposit of peritubular dentine. Gerodontology 11:93–98
Pérez-Mongiovi D, Teixeira A, Caldas IM (2015) The radiographic visibility of the root pulp of the third lower molar as an age marker. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 11:339–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-015-9688-2
Timme M, Timme WH, Olze A, Ottow C, Ribbecke S, Pfeiffer H, Dettmeyer R, Schmeling A (2017) The chronology of the radiographic visibility of the periodontal ligament and the root pulp in the lower third molars. Sci Justice. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2017.03.004
Guo Y-C, Chu G, Olze A, Schmidt S, Schulz R, Ottow C, Pfeiffer H, Chen T, Schmeling A (2018) Application of age assessment based on the radiographic visibility of the root pulp of lower third molars in a northern Chinese population. Int J Legal Med 132:825–829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-017-1731-2
Kumar GK, Kumar DRS, Kulkarni G, Balla SB, Shyam NDVN, Naishadham Y (2019) et al. stages of radiographic visibility of root pulp and cameriere’s third molar maturity index to estimate legal adult age in Hyderabad population. J Forensic Dent Sci 11:84–89. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfo.jfds_40_19
Al Qattan F, Alzoubi EE, Lucas V, Roberts G, McDonald F, Camilleri S (2020) Root Pulp Visibility as a mandibular maturity marker at the 18-year threshold in the Maltese population. Int J Legal Med 134:363–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-019-02155-5
Lucas VS, McDonald F, Andiappan M, Roberts G (2017) Dental age estimation-root pulp visibility (RPV) patterns: a reliable mandibular maturity marker at the 18 year threshold. Forensic Sci Int 270:98–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.11.004
Lamster IB, Asadourian L, Del Carmen T (2000) Friedman PK (2016) The aging mouth: differentiating normal aging from disease. Periodontol 72:96–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12131
Koçkapan C (2003) Curriculum Endodontie. Quintessenz Verl, Berlin
Mjoer IA, Mjör IA (2002) Pulp-dentin biology in restorative dentistry. Quintessence Publ, Chicago Berlin
Olze A, Hertel J, Schulz R, Schmeling A (2012) Zementapposition als Kriterium der zahnärztlichen Altersschätzung. Rechtsmedizin 22:106–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00194-012-0807-z
Rachwal J, Viner M, Andiappan M, Roberts G, Lucas VS (2020) Buccal bone width adjacent to the lower left third molar and loss of root pulp visibility (RPV). Forensic Imaging 22:200383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fri.2020.200383
Kronseder K, Runte C, Kleinheinz J, Jung S, Dirksen D (2020) Distribution of bone thickness in the human mandibular ramus—a CBCT-based study. Head Face Med 16:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-020-00228-0
Timme M, Viktorov J, Steffens L, Streeter A, Karch A, Schmeling A (2023) Third molar eruption in orthopantomograms as a feature for forensic age assessment-a comparison study of different classification systems. Int J Legal Med 137:765–772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-023-02982-7
Krippendorff K (2004) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif
Artstein R, Poesio M (2008) Inter-Coder Agreement for Computational Linguistics. Comput Linguistics 34:555–596. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.07-034-R2
Akkaya N, Yılancı HÖ, Boyacıoğlu H, Göksülük D, Özkan G (2019) Accuracy of the use of radiographic visibility of root pulp in the mandibular third molar as a maturity marker at age thresholds of 18 and 21. Int J Legal Med 133:1507–1515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-019-02036-x
Hassan BA, Payam J, Juyanda B, van der Stelt P, Wesselink PR (2012) Influence of scan setting selections on root canal visibility with cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 41:645–648. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/27670911
Rushton VE, Horner K (1996) The use of panoramic radiology in dental practice. J Dent 24:185–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(95)00055-0
Szabo BT, Pataky L, Mikusi R, Fejerdy P, Dobo-Nagy C (2012) Comparative evaluation of cone-beam CT equipment with micro-CT in the visualization of root canal system. Ann Ist Super Sanita 48:49–52. https://doi.org/10.4415/ANN_12_01_08
Gunacar DN, Bayrak S, Sinanoglu EA (2022) Three-dimensional verification of the radiographic visibility of the root pulp used for forensic age estimation in mandibular third molars. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 51:20210368. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20210368
Serin Canpolat S, Bayrak S (2023) Evaluation of radiographic visibility of root pulp in mandibular second molars using cone beam computed tomography images for age estimation. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-023-00594-6
Barbosa MG, Franco A, de Oliveira RDB, Mamani MP, Junqueira JLC, Soares MQS (2023) Pulp volume quantification methods in cone-beam computed tomography for age estimation: a critical review and meta-analysis. J Forensic Sci 68:743–756. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15248
Kazmi S, Mânica S, Revie G, Shepherd S, Hector M (2019) Age estimation using canine pulp volumes in adults: a CBCT image analysis. Int J Legal Med 133:1967–1976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-019-02147-5
Andrade VM, Fontenele RC, de Souza AC, de Almeida CA, Vieira AC, Groppo FC, Freitas DQ, Junior ED (2019) Age and sex estimation based on pulp cavity volume using cone beam computed tomography: development and validation of formulas in a Brazilian sample. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 48:20190053. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20190053
Gulsahi A, Kulah CK, Bakirarar B, Gulen O, Kamburoglu K (2018) Age estimation based on pulp/tooth volume ratio measured on cone-beam CT images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 47:20170239. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20170239
Pinchi V, Pradella F, Buti J, Baldinotti C, Focardi M, Norelli G-A (2015) A new age estimation procedure based on the 3D CBCT study of the pulp cavity and hard tissues of the teeth for forensic purposes: a pilot study. J Forensic Legal Med 36:150–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2015.09.015
Sironi E, Taroni F, Baldinotti C, Nardi C, Norelli G-A, Gallidabino M, Pinchi V (2018) Age estimation by assessment of pulp chamber volume: a Bayesian network for the evaluation of dental evidence. Int J Legal Med 132:1125–1138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-017-1733-0
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The study was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation)—Project No. 440395473
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
All examinations were performed with the approval of the responsible ethics committee of the Medical Association Westfalen-Lippe and the University of Münster (AZ 2019-322-f-S), and in accordance with national law.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Timme, M., Viktorov, J., Steffens, L. et al. Dental age assessment in the living: a comparison of two common stage classifications for assessing radiographic visibility of the root canals in mandibular third molars. Int J Legal Med 138, 499–507 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-023-03121-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-023-03121-y