Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of three methods to estimate dental age in children

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

In 1973, Demirjian and colleagues introduced a staging for tooth mineralization. Staging of the teeth of the left mandible generates a dental maturity score and an estimate of dental age. An update of this method was published in 2001 by Willems and colleagues. The London Atlas (2008) is another method used to assess dental age. This study compared the precision of these three methods for forensic age estimation.

Materials and methods

A total of 500 panoramic images of 251 boys and 249 girls aged 6–16 years had dental maturity evaluated by the same observer using the London Atlas and the methods of Demirjian and Willems. Individuals with syndromes potentially affecting dental maturation were excluded. The three methods were compared with respect to their precision in estimating chronological age.

Results

Age estimates using Willems’ method were significantly more precise than those obtained using Demirjian’s method, while estimates obtained using the London Atlas method were comparable with both the others. The highest precision was obtained using the average of age estimates from Willems’ method and the London Atlas.

Conclusions

To estimate age in individuals suspected of being below 16 years of age, we suggest first applying the London Atlas then computing age from the Demirjian stages of particular teeth using Willems’ method, and finally using the average age estimate of both methods.

Clinical relevance

Combining the London Atlas and Willems’ scoring method provides more precise estimates of dental age than the current practice of applying a single preferred method.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schmeling A, Grundmann C, Fuhrmann A, Kaatsch HJ, Knell B, Ramsthaler F, Reisinger W, Riepert T, Ritz-Timme S, Rösing FW, Rötzscher K, Geserick G (2008) Updated recommendations of the study group on forensic age diagnostics for age estimation in living individuals in criminal proceedings. Rechtsmedizin 18:451–453 [German]

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kirschneck C, Proff P (2018) Age assessment in orthodontics and general dentistry. Quintessence Int 49:313–323

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Demirjian A, Goldstein H, Tanner JM (1973) A new system of dental age assessment. Hum Biol 45:211–227

    Google Scholar 

  4. Willems G, van Olmen A, Spiessens B, Carels C (2001) Dental age estimation in Belgian children: Demirjian’s technique revisited. J Forensic Sci 46:893–895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. AlQahtani SJ, Liversidge HM, Hector MP (2010) Atlas of tooth development and eruption. Am J Phys Anthropol 142:481–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. AlQahtani SJ, Hector MP, Liversidge HM (2014) Accuracy of dental age estimation charts: Schour and Massler, Ubelaker and the London Atlas. Am J Phys Anthropol 154:70–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kenrad JB, Christensen IJ, Kjær I (2013) Gender differences in patterns of second premolar agenesis observed in 4,756 individuals. Eur Archiv Paediatric Dentist 14:397–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gelbrich B, Hirsch A, Dannhauer KH, Gelbrich G (2015) Agenesis of second premolars and delayed dental maturation. J Orofac Orthop 76:338–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mohd Yusof MYP, Wan Mokhtar I, Rajasekharan S, Overholser R, Martens L (2017) Performance of Willem's dental age estimation method in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Forensic Sci Int 280:245.e1–245.e10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pavlović S, Palmela Pereira C, Vargas de Sousa Santos RF (2017) Age estimation in Portuguese population: the application of the London atlas of tooth development and eruption. Forensic Sci Int 272:97–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Baylis S, Bassed R (2017) Precision and accuracy of commonly used dental age estimation charts for the New Zealand population. Forensic Sci Int 277:223–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ghafari R, Ghodousi A, Poordavar E (2018) Comparison of the accuracy of the London atlas and smith method in dental age estimation in 5-15.99-year-old Iranians using the panoramic view. Int J Legal Med. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-018-1808-6

  13. Hofmann E, Robold M, Proff P, Kirschneck C (2017) Age assessment based on third molar mineralisation: an epidemiological-radiological study on a Central-European population. J Orofac Orthop 78:97–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Thiemann HH, Nitz I, Schmeling A (2006) Radiographic atlas of the normal hand in childhood, 3rd edn. Thieme, Stuttgart [German]

    Google Scholar 

  15. Greulich WW, Pyle SI (1959) Radiographic atlas of skeletal development of the hand and wrist. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Gelbrich B, Frerking C, Weiss S, Schwerdt S, Stellzig-Eisenhauer A, Tausche E, Gelbrich G (2015) Combining wrist age and third molars in forensic age estimation: how to calculate the joint age estimate and its error rate in age diagnostics. Ann Hum Biol 42:389–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Professor Angelika Stellzig-Eisenhauer, director of the Department of Orthodontics of the University Hospital Würzburg, for granting access to the radiographic archive data of her policlinic and providing the opportunity to extract anonymous image material for scientific research. The authors also wish to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers whose comments were very helpful in improving the presentation of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

BG had the idea and developed the plan for the study. CC collected the data under the guidance and supervision of GG, and BG checked data for plausibility. GG performed the statistical analyses. BG and GG interpreted the results and prepared the first draft of the manuscript. CC critically revised the manuscript. All authors approved the submission and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and analyses.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bianca Gelbrich.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study retrospectively evaluated anonymous radiographic images obtained in routine clinical practice. Therefore, no ethical evaluation or approval was required according to applicable German law. This was confirmed by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Würzburg (reference number 20170317-01).

Informed consent

It was determined that no formal consent was required for this study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOC 63 kb)

ESM 2

(SAV 18 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gelbrich, B., Carl, C. & Gelbrich, G. Comparison of three methods to estimate dental age in children. Clin Oral Invest 24, 2469–2475 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03109-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03109-2

Keywords

Navigation