ISSN: 2692-4722
Forensic Science Today
Review Article       Open Access      Peer-Reviewed

Dental Age Estimation Methods in Forensic Dentistry: Literature Review

André Luiz Bérgamo, Cristhiane Leão de Queiroz, Hiromi Eduardo Sakamoto and Ricardo Henrique Alves da Silva*

Department of Stomatology, Public Health and Forensic Odontology, School of Dentistry of Ribeirao Preto, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil
*Corresponding author: Prof. Dr. Ricardo, Henrique Alves da Silva, Department of Stomatology, Public Health and Forensic Dentistry, USP - School of Dentistry of Ribeirao Preto. Avenida do Café, s/n, CEP (zip code): 14040-904,Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil, Tel: +55 16 33153969; E-mail: ricardohenrique@usp.br
DOI: 10.17352/fst.000005
Received: 17 December, 2015 | Accepted: 03 February, 2016 | Published: 05 February, 2016
Keywords: Age estimation; Dental age; Forensic Dentistry; Human Identification

Cite this as

Bérgamo AL, de Queiroz CL, Sakamoto HE, Alves da Silva RH (2016) Dental Age Estimation Methods in Forensic Dentistry: Literature Review. Forensic Sci Today 2(1): 004-009. DOI: 10.17352/fst.000005

Introduction: Age estimation is essential in human identification, but also in civil and pension lawsuits. Teeth maturation is better than other structures and the dental changes provide characteristics which are grouped in different age estimation methods.

Objective: The purpose of this literature review was to present the main methods in age estimation that have been currently used.

Material and Methods: The database searched was PubMed and the terms used were “dental age estimation methods” and “forensic dentistry”. Just papers about dental age estimation methods written in English between 2012 and 2015 were selected.

Results: 67 papers were retrieved through electronic searching, but nine studies were excluded.

Conclusion: The most dental age estimation methods were based on developmental stages of the teeth through radiographs and they were applied in children and sub-adults in countries of the different continents.

Introduction

Age estimation plays an important role in Forensic Dentistry for dead individual identification as well as for alive persons to clarify criminal and civil liability issues [1]. Teeth, skeleton or both structures are used on age estimation as maturity indicators. However the teeth maturation provides a valuable index of dental age and serves as a better index of the maturation than other index [2]. This maturation is divided in initial mineralization of a tooth, crown formation, root growth, eruption of the tooth into the mouth and root apex maturation [3].

In some situations such as mass disasters and decomposed postmortem remains the dental hard tissues present importance in identification. Teeth are resistant to environmental insults and postmortem decomposition and hence can be retained without distortion. The morphology and arrangement of teeth is unique to an individual as are the fingerprints. Thus, human dentition aids in the individuals identification [4].

Dental age estimation methods have been widely reported. Some methods are relatively accurate, conservative and preserve the teeth structure and other methods require the tooth extraction as well as require some preparation.

Tooth eruption, tooth calcification, attrition, periodontal diseases, secondary dentin deposition, root translucency, cementum apposition, root resorption, color changes and increase in root roughness are dental changes related to age which are analyzed most on radiographs as different dental age estimation methods [1-58].

Techniques have been developed based on the relationship between age and characteristics of the tooth structure to estimate the age in children and adults [1-58]. The purpose of this paper was to present the main methods that have been used in the last years, according to the literature.

Material and Methods

The database searched was PubMed until March 2015 and the terms used were “dental age estimation methods” and “forensic dentistry”. All studies listed from these terms were analyzed. The inclusion criteria were: papers published in English between 2012 and 2015 from research about dental age estimation methods. Exclusion criteria were: papers published in other languages or in English but before 2012, as well as case report and literature review and other issues different of dental age estimation methods.

Results

67 articles were retrieved through electronic search, but nine studies were excluded, because one was in German language, two could not be accessed the full text, three were literature review, one was age estimation through skeletal maturation, one was asymmetrical left/right skeletal and dental development and one was sex assessment (Table 1).

Table 1: Studies selected from literature review according to inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Published Year Studies Country/Ancestrality Age range (years) Dental age estimation methods
2015 Altunsoy et al. [6] Turkey 7-16 Demirjian 1973
Bommannavar and Kulkarni [12] - 21-80 Gustafson 1950
Mohammed et al. [43] India 6-16 Demirjian 1973
Willems 2001
Nolla 1960
Haavikko 1974
Mohammed et al. [44] India 9-20 Chaillet and Demirjian 2004
Acharya 2011
Patel et al. [47] India 6-16 Demirjian 1973
Willems 2001
2014 AlQahtani et al. [4] - prenatal to 23.94 Schour and Massler 1941a
Schour and Massler 1941b
Ubelaker 1978
London Atlas 2010
Altalie et al. [5] United Arab Emirates 4-23 Demirjian 1973
Willems 2001
Köhler et al.1994
Ambarkova et al. [7] Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 6-13 Demirjian 1973
Demirjian 1976
Willems 2001
Baghdadi [9] Saudi Arabia 4-14 Demirjian 1973
Demirjian modified curves
Brough et al. [13] - 0-18 Postmortem computed tomography and conventional orthopantomography
Celik et al. [18] Turkey 13-18 Demirjian 1973
De Luca et al. [21] Italy 13-22 Cameriere et al. 2008a
Gibelli et al. [28] - - Lamendin et al. 1992
Khorate et al. [37] India 4-22.1 Acharya 2011
Chaillet and Demirjian 2004
Dinkar 1984
Foti and cowokers mathematical models 2003
Mohammed et al. [41] India 6-16 Willems 2001
Mohammed et al. [42] India 9-20 Demirjian 1976
Naik et al. [45] India 7-24 Demirjian 1973
Rai et al. [49] India 5-15 Demirjian 1973
Schour and Massler 1941
2013 Almeida et al. [3] Brazil 4.6-16 Demirjian 1973
Baghdadi [8] Saudi Arabia 4-14 Demirjian 1973
Demirjian modified curves
Chaillet et al. 2004
Bhowmik et al. [11] India 14-23 Köhler et al. 2002
Mesotten et al. 2002
Gunst et al. 2003
Cameriere et al. [15] - 18-74 Cameriere 2008b
Paewinsky et al. 2005
Cantekin et al. [17] Turkey 9-25 Demirjian 1976
da Silva et al. [19] Brazil 7-63 Hasegawa et al. 2000
Djukic et al. [22] Serbia 4-15 Demirjian 1973
Willems 2001
Flood et al. [26] Australia 4.9-14.5 Demirjian 1973
Demirjian 1976
Galić et al. [27] Bosnia and Herzegovina 6-14 Demirjian 1973
Chaillet et al. 2005
Gocha and Schutkowski [29] United Kingdom 13-82 Wittwer-Backofen et al. 2004
Kagerer and Grupe 2001
Jatti et al. [32] India 12-16 Cameriere et al. 2006
Karataş et al. [35] Turkey 6-16 Demirjian 1973
Karkhanis et al. [36] Australia 9-60 Drusini et al. 1997
Lajolo et al. [39] Italy 8-25 Demirjian 1973
Third molar development for age estimation 2009
Prabhu et al. [48] India unknown age Dinkar 1984
Moorees et al. 1963
Gleiser and Hunt 1955
Rajkumari et al. [50] India 11-70 Yekkala et al. 2006
Sakuma et al. [51] - 14-79 Postmortem multidetector-row computed tomography pulp cavity and tooth
volumes images
Sarkar et al. [52] India 5-24 Chaillet and Demirjian 2004
Acharya 2011
Shilpa et al. [53] India 6-15 Demirjian 1973
Demirjian 1976
Chaillet et al. 2004
Shrigiriwar and Jadhav [54] India 26-70 Gustafson 1950
Urzel and Bruzek [58] France 4-15 Demirjian 1973
Demirjian 1976
Chaillet et al. 2005
Willems 2001
Willems 2010
2012 Agarwal et al. [1] - 20-70 Kvaal et al. 1995
Ajmal et al. [2] Saudi Arabia 13-23 Demirjian’s chart modified by Kasper 2009
Bagherpour et al. [10] Iran 15-22 Köhler et al.1994
Thevissen et al. 2009
Cameriere et al. [14] Spain 18-75 Cameriere et al. 2007b
Cameriere et al. 2009
Cantekin et al. [16] Turkey 7-22 Demirjian 1973
De Luca et al. [20] Mexico 5-15 Cameriere et al. 2006
Cameriere et al. 2007a
Erbudak et al. [23] Turkey 14-57 Kvaal et al. 1995
Paewinsky et al. 2005
Feijóo et al. [24] Spain 2-16 Demirjian 1973
Feijóo et al. [25] Spain 2-16 Demirjian 1973
Demirjian 1976
Grover et al. [30] India 6-15 Demirjian 1973
Willems 2001
Ifesanya and Adeyemi [31] Nigeria Up to 16 Demirjian 1973
Jayaraman et al. [33] China 2-21 Demirjian 1973
United Kingdom
Caucasian Reference Data Set
Kanchan-Talreja et al. [34] India 25-77 Kvaal et al. 1995
Kırzıoğlu and Ceyhan [38] Turkey 7-13 Demirjian 1973
Nolla 1960
Haaviko 1970
Li et al. [40] China 5-23 Demirjian 1973
Demirjian 1976
Olze et al. [46] Germany 15-40 Gustafson 1947
Gustafson 1950
Gustafson 1955
Thevissen et al. [55] Belgium 3-26 Köhler et al.1994
Gleiser and Hunt 1955
Thevissen et al. [56] 15-23 Kvaal et al. 1995
Köhler et al.1994
Gleiser and Hunt 1955
Timmins et al. [57] New Zealand 7-17 Demirjian 1973
Cameriere et al. 2006

Discussion

A lot of studies on dental age estimation methods were published in few years, 2012 to early 2015, as showed in this paper. It shows the great interest in Forensic Sciences to study these methods in different groups.

The dental age research is due to the fact that teeth start the development at an early embryonic period [8], besides being the most resistant structure of the human body, available for long time after death. In addition, the age estimation as well as the data provided by the chronology of dental development are more reliable than those provided by bone development [2], because in the first there are fewer changes. Due to all these characteristics, human teeth are often used, with the support of anatomical and radiological investigation in order to estimate the age [1-58].

The most used techniques found, according to the literature, were radiographic methods like Demirjian 1973 [2,3,7,9-13,19,21,25-29,32,33,35,37,40-42,46,49,53,57,58] and Willems 2001 [2,3,9,11,25,32,43,58]. The first is due to the maturity scoring system that creates a universal application and the conversion to dental age. The second tested the validity of Demirjian’s methods in 1973 and 1976 on Belgian and it presented new tables for each sex with age score directly expressed in years [3].

Demirjian 1973 method is still widely used. It was based on eight stages of the left mandibular teeth through radiographic analysis and it was performed in French-Canadian children [2,3,7,9-13,19,21,25-29,32,33,35,37,40-42,46,49,53,57,58]. Nevertheless this method was applied in populations of different countries and age range, according to Table 1. Some studies only used Demirjian 1973 method in the Turkey [10, 19, 21, 37]. The authors considered the method is not suitable [10] and they observed variations according to different regions of this country [21]. Additionally dental age was lower than the chronological age [37] and a new equation proposed by Demirjian 1973 method will be very useful for age estimation through third-molar mineralization [19].

Other studies also applied this method and they noted the linear correlation between chronological age and dental age [46]. Moreover it was observed that ethnic variables are related to certain parameters of age in the Brazilian population, providing important information for forensic evaluations [7]. The methods proposed by Demirjian in 1973 and 1976 resulted in a significant overestimation of dental age in relation to the chronological age [26] and there are variations between chronological age and dental development among Nigerian children [33].

Demirjian 1976 included two new extra stages, enlarged the age range and presented two different sets of four teeth [11]. Different authors [20,44], observed that assessment of mandibular third molar development can be used to generate dental age and also the estimated age range for an individual of unknown chronological age.

Other authors who associated this method with other they demonstrated Willems 2001 method was the most accurate while Demirjian’s methods in 1973 and 1976 for dental age calculation are not suitable on children from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [11]. When comparing Demirjian 1973 and 1976 methods there were significant differences overall and in individual age groups between mean chronological and estimated age. In addition, each method consistently overestimated chronological age [28]. Chaillet et al. 2004, method of dental age estimation showed accuracy only in certain age groups in the school children of Bangalore [53]. Three modified methods Willems 2001 and 2010 and Chaillet et al. 2005, were more accurate for both sexes than Demirjian’s method in 1973 and 1976 [58]. It found that the mean estimated dental age exceeded the mean chronological age in both boys and girls [27]. This study provided reference data for the age estimation of western Chinese juveniles and adolescents by the mineralization stages of the third molar [42].

In 1960, Nolla created a 0-10 graded scale for the development of each tooth based on the calcification of teeth for the dental age estimation [3,40]. This method was more accurate than Demirjian 1973 and 1976, Willems 2001 and Haavikko 1974 methods for Indian children [3]. On the other hand, an under-estimation of the dental age was observed by using Nolla 1960 method for Turkish children [40].

According to other method based on the degrees of tooth calcification, Haavikko 1970 method, which presents a total of 12 radiographic calcification stages for the crown and root development and assesses developing teeth and determines dental age [40]. An underestimation of dental age was observed using this method [3,40].

Gustafson (Gustafson 1947, 1950 and 1955) method attributed secondary dentin formation, periodontal recession, attrition, apical translucency, cementum apposition and external root resorption as dental changes related to the chronological age [47]. The regression equations calculated can be recommended for age estimation in living individuals, although the applicability of the method presented is limited by the quality of the X-ray images [47]. Among these dental changes root dentin translucency was considered the best parameter for age estimation [4]. Furthermore the age calculation using total score was found to be more accurate than the age calculated using score of single physiological factor [54].

The dental pulp cavity reduction as result of secondary dentine deposition is an age indicator according to Kvaal et al. 1995. It can be applied in living individuals, is non-invasive, reliable and accurate [5]. The length and width of the pulp, measured according to this method using panoramic radiographs, were insufficient to precisely estimate the age of Turkish individuals [1]. Large errors from Kvaal’s formulae in 1995 may owe primarily to variation in the rate of secondary dentinal deposition in Indians influenced both by environmental and genetic variation [36]. In the adult age category, the Kvaal technique in the same year can provide more accurate age estimates, under condition that the method is applied as originally designed, implicating that periapical x-rays (preferably taken with the parallel technique) need to be examined [56].

Third molar development was evaluated using a ten-point scoring system according to the method of Gleiser and Hunt modified by Köhler in 1994. As third molars start developing in the children group, these teeth were staged in this group according the Köhler technique in the same year. This allowed to combine permanent teeth with third molars development information, but related to the ages of forensic importance in United Arab Emirates, it is unnecessary to systematically integrate third molar development in the dental age assessments of children [9]. Just for sub adults groups the age estimation should only be based on third molar development [56]. Furthermore, in cases where four third molar teeth development is completed, the probability is high of an Iranian being older than 18 years [14]. Additionally age-related skeletal information associated with third molar improved the age predictions drastically, especially in the period of early third molar development [55].

Charts of the developing dentition and tooth specific crown/root formation like the atlas of Schour and Massler in 1941a and 1941b consist of a series of 21 drawings from in-utero to adulthood. The findings show that the London Atlas in 2010 performs better than Schour and Massler in 1941a and 1941b and Ubelaker in 1978. It represents a substantial improvement in accuracy of dental age estimation from developing teeth [8]. On the other hand there were overestimation for males and underestimation for females. It could be due to anatomical representations of teeth that mask internal tooth structures and with no information regarding eruption reference [49].

Cameriere 2006 method assessed chronological age in children based on the relationship between age and measurement of open apices in teeth and European formula about this relationship. Moreover pulp/tooth ratio in canines through peri-apaical X-rays and this ratio to quantify the apposition of secondary dentine. Additionally, cut-off value of Cameriere et al. 2008a, method for the third molar index evaluated 18 years of age and proved high probability for a subject was 18 years or older [24]. There is significant correlation between age and measurement of open apices. This method can be used for assessing age in forensic as well as legal contexts [34]. Although incisors are less reliable than canines or lower premolars, they can be used to estimate age-at-death when the latter are absent [18]. The pulp/tooth area ratio is a useful variable for assessing age with reasonable accuracy [17]. Cameriere et al. 2007a, method is suitable for dental age estimation in Mexican children [23]. The Cameriere et al. 2006, method associated with Demirjian 1973 method of dental maturity and cervical vertebral maturation are reliable and useful in assessing dental and skeletal maturity [57].

Methods such as racemization of aspartic acid [50], have presented an error margin which has not exceeded three years. However, this kind of technique is often discussed in the literature, not to mention that it´s really time consuming, costly, requires tooth extraction and some of them require the microscopic preparation of tooth structures. Other methods like to measure root dentin translucency [4], dental fluorescence [22], are precise methods and they correlated with age, but there are still few studies.

The ideal age estimation method is a constant search of Forensic Odontologists. It must be observed that there are a great variety of dental age estimation methods available that can be used. They all have their advantages and disadvantages and the ideal is always to apply more than one method, repeating measurements and calculations in order to establish the maximum reproduction [1-3,8,9,11-15,17,18,23,25,27-29,31,32,35,39-41,42,45,47-49,52,53,55-58].

Therefore, for dental age estimation it should be taken into consideration different ancestrally with its genetic predispositions in a geographical region. Furthermore, firstly, it is important to note the reliability of the dental age method applied in relation to chronological age and compare different dental age methods with each other.

Conclusion

The most used dental age estimation methods were based on teeth develop stages through radiographs and they were applied in children and sub-adults in countries of the different continents.

  1. Erbudak HÖ, Ozbek M, Uysal S, Karabulut E (2012) Application of Kvaal et al.'s age estimation method to panoramic radiographs from Turkish individuals. Forensic Sci Int 219: 141-146 .
  2. Patel PS, Chaudhary AR, Dudhia BB, Bhatia PV, Soni NC, et al. (2015) Accuracy of two dental and one skeletal age estimation methods in 6-16 year old Gujarati children. J Forensic Dent Sci 7: 18-27 .
  3. Mohammed RB, Sanghvi P, Perumalla KK, Srinivasaraju D, Srinivas J, et al. (2015) Accuracy of four dental age estimation methods in southern Indian children. J Clin Diagn Res 9: HC01-8 .
  4. Bommannavar S, Kulkarni M (2015) Comparative study of age estimation using dentinal translucency by digital and conventional methods. J Forensic Dent Sci 7: 71-75 .
  5. Agarwal N, Ahuja P, Sinha A, Singh A (2012) Age estimation using maxillary central incisors: A radiographic study. J Forensic Dent Sci 4: 97-100 .
  6. Ajmal M, Assiri KI, Al-Ameer KY, Assiri AM, Luqman M (2012) Age estimation using third molar teeth: A study on southern Saudi population. J Forensic Dent Sci 4: 63-65 .
  7. Almeida MS, Pontual Ados A, Beltrão RT, Beltrão RV, Pontual ML (2013) The chronology of second molar development in Brazilians and its application to forensic age estimation. Imaging Sci Dent 43: 1-6 .
  8. 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 .
  9. Altalie S, Thevissen P, Fieuws S, Willems G (2014) Optimal dental age estimation practice in United Arab Emirates' children. J Forensic Sci 59: 383-385 .
  10. Altunsoy M, Nur BG, Akkemik O, Ok E, Evcil MS (2015) Applicability of the Demirjian method for dental age estimation in western Turkish children. Acta Odontol Scand 73: 121-125 .
  11. Ambarkova V, Galić I, Vodanović M, Biočina-Lukenda D, Brkić H (2014) Dental age estimation using Demirjian and Willems methods: cross sectional study on children from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Forensic Sci Int 234: 187.e1-7 .
  12. Baghdadi ZD (2013) Dental maturity of Saudi children: Role of ethnicity in age determination. Imaging Sci Dent 43: 267-272.
  13. Baghdadi ZD (2014) Testing international dental maturation scoring system and population-specific Demirjian versions on Saudi sub-population. J Clin Exp Dent 6: e138-144.
  14. Bagherpour A, Anbiaee N, Partovi P, Golestani S, Afzalinasab S (2012) Dental age assessment of young Iranian adults using third molars: A multivariate regression study. J Forensic Leg Med 19: 407-412.
  15. Bhowmik B, Acharya AB, Naikmasur VG (2013) The usefulness of Belgian formulae in third molar-based age assessment of Indians. Forensic Sci Int 226: 300.e1-5 .
  16. Brough AL, Morgan B, Black S, Adams C, Rutty GN (2014) Postmortem computed tomography age assessment of juvenile dentition: comparison against traditional OPT assessment. Int J Legal Med 128: 653-658.
  17. Cameriere R, De Luca S, Alemán I, Ferrante L, Cingolani M (2012) Age estimation by pulp/tooth ratio in lower premolars by orthopantomography. Forensic Sci Int 214: 105-112 .
  18. Cameriere R, Cunha E, Wasterlain SN, De Luca S, Sassaroli E, et al. (2013) Age estimation by pulp/tooth ratio in lateral and central incisors by peri-apical X-ray. J Forensic Leg Med 20: 530-536 .
  19. Cantekin K, Yilmaz Y, Demirci T, Celikoglu M (2012) Morphologic analysis of third-molar mineralization for eastern Turkish children and youth. J Forensic Sci 57: 531-534 .
  20. Cantekin K, Sekerci AE, Buyuk SK (2013) Dental computed tomographic imaging as age estimation: morphological analysis of the third molar of a group of Turkish population. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 34: 357-362.
  21. Celik S, Zeren C, Celikel A, Yengil E, Altan A (2014) Applicability of the Demirjian method for dental assessment of southern Turkish children. J Forensic Leg Med 25: 1-5.
  22. Da Silva RD, da Silva MA, de Oliveira OB, Melo AC, de Oliveira RN (2013) Dental fluorescence: potential forensic use. Forensic Sci Int 231: 167-171 .
  23. De Luca S, De Giorgio S, Butti AC, Biagi R, Cingolani M, et al. (2012) Age estimation in children by measurement of open apices in tooth roots: Study of a Mexican sample. Forensic Sci Int 221: 155.e1-7 .
  24. De Luca S, Biagi R, Begnoni G, Farronato G, Cingolani M, et al. (2014) Accuracy of Cameriere's cut-off value for third molar in assessing 18 years of age. Forensic Sci Int 235: 102.e1-6 .
  25. Djukic K, Zelic K, Milenkovic P, Nedeljkovic N, Djuric M (2013) Dental age assessment validity of radiographic methods on Serbian children population. Forensic Sci Int 231: 398.e1-5 .
  26. Feijóo G, Barbería E, De Nova J, Prieto JL (2012a) Permanent teeth development in a Spanish sample. Application to dental age estimation. Forensic Sci Int 214: 213.e1-6 .
  27. Feijóo G, Barbería E, De Nova J, Prieto JL (2012b) Dental age estimation in Spanish children. Forensic Sci Int 223: 371.e1-5 .
  28. Flood SJ, Franklin D, Turlach BA, McGeachie J (2013) A comparison of Demirjian's four dental development methods for forensic age estimation in South Australian sub-adults. J Forensic Leg Med 20: 875-883 .
  29. Galić I, Vodanović M, Janković S, Mihanović F, Nakaš E, et al. (2013) Dental age estimation on Bosnian-Herzegovinian children aged 6-14 years: evaluation of Chaillet's international maturity standards. J Forensic Leg Med 20: 40-45 .
  30. Gibelli D, De Angelis D, Rossetti F, Cappella A, Frustaci M, et al. (2014) Thermal modifications of root transparency and implications for aging: a pilot study. J Forensic Sci 59: 219-223 .
  31. Gocha TP, Schutkowski H (2013) Tooth cementum annulation for estimation of age-at-death in thermally altered remains. J Forensic Sci 58: S151-155 .
  32. Grover S, Marya CM, Avinash J, Pruthi N (2012) Estimation of dental age and its comparison with chronological age: accuracy of two radiographic methods. Med Sci Law 52: 32-35 .
  33. Ifesanya JU, Adeyemi AT (2012) Accuracy of age estimation using Demirjian method among Nigerian children. Afr J Med Med Sci 41: 297-300 .
  34. Jatti D, Kantaraj Y, Nagaraju R, Janardhan S, Nataraj S (2013) Age estimation by measuring open apices of lower erupted teeth in 12-16 years olds by radiographic evaluation. J Forensic Leg Med 20: 430-434 .
  35. Jayaraman J, Roberts GJ, King NM, Wong HM (2012) Dental age assessment of southern Chinese using the United Kingdom Caucasian reference dataset. Forensic Sci Int 216: 68-72 .
  36. Kanchan-Talreja P, Acharya AB, Naikmasur VG (2012) An assessment of the versatility of Kvaal's method of adult dental age estimation in Indians. Arch Oral Biol 57: 277-284.
  37. Karataş OH, Öztürk F, Dedeoğlu N, Çolak C, Altun O (2013) Radiographic evaluation of third-molar development in relation to the chronological age of Turkish children in the southwest Eastern Anatolia region. Forensic Sci Int 232: 238.e1-5 .
  38. Karkhanis S, Mack P, Franklin D (2013) Age estimation standards for a Western Australian population using the coronal pulp cavity index. Forensic Sci Int 231: 412.e1-6 .
  39. Khorate MM, Dinkar AD, Ahmed J (2014) Accuracy of age estimation methods from orthopantomograph in forensic odontology: a comparative study. Forensic Sci Int 234: 184.e1-8 .
  40. Kırzıoğlu Z, Ceyhan D (2012) Accuracy of different dental age estimation methods on Turkish children. Forensic Sci Int 216: 61-67 .
  41. Lajolo C, Giuliani M, Cordaro M, Marigo L, Marcelli A, et al. (2013) Two new oro-cervical radiographic indexes for chronological age estimation: a pilot study on an Italian population. J Forensic Leg Med 20: 861-866 .
  42. Li G, Ren J, Zhao S, Liu Y, Li N, et al. (2012) Dental age estimation from the developmental stage of the third molars in western Chinese population. Forensic Sci Int 219: 158-164 .
  43. Mohammed RB, Krishnamraju PV, Prasanth PS, Sanghvi P, Lata Reddy MA, et al. (2014a) Dental age estimation using Willems method: A digital orthopantomographic study. Contemp Clin Dent 5: 371-376 .
  44. Mohammed RB, Koganti R, Kalyan SV, Tircouveluri S, Singh JR, et al. (2014) Digital radiographic evaluation of mandibular third molar for age estimation in young adults and adolescents of South Indian population using modified Demirjian's method. J Forensic Dent Sci 6: 191-196.
  45. Mohammed RB, Srinivas B, Sanghvi P, Satyanarayana G, Gopalakrishnan M, et al. (2015) Accuracy of Demirjian's 8 teeth method for age prediction in South Indian children: A comparative study. Contemp Clin Dent 6: 5-11 .
  46. Naik SB, Patil SN, Kamble SD, Mowade T, Motghare P (2014) Reliability of Third Molar Development for Age Estimation by Radiographic Examination (Demirjian's Method). J Clin Diagn Res 8: ZC25-8 .
  47. 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 .
  48. Prabhu RV, Satoskar S, Dinkar AD, Prabhu VD (2013) Dental age estimation among female commercial sex workers in Goa. J Forensic Leg Med 20: 788-791 .
  49. Rai V, Saha S, Yadav G, Tripathi AM, Grover K (2014) Dental and skeletal maturity- a biological indicator of chronologic age. J Clin Diagn Res 8: ZC60-64 .
  50. Rajkumari S, Nirmal M, Sunil PM, Smith AA (2013) Estimation of age using aspartic acid racemisation in human dentin in Indian population. Forensic Sci Int 228: 38-41 .
  51. Sakuma A, Saitoh H, Suzuki Y, Makino Y, Inokuchi G, et al. (2013) Age estimation based on pulp cavity to tooth volume ratio using postmortem computed tomography images. J Forensic Sci 58: 1531-1535 .
  52. Sarkar S, Kailasam S, Mahesh Kumar P (2013) Accuracy of estimation of dental age in comparison with chronological age in Indian population--a comparative analysis of two formulas. J Forensic Leg Med 20: 230-233 .
  53. Shilpa PH, Sunil RS, Sapna K, Kumar NC (2013) Estimation and comparison of dental, skeletal and chronologic age in Bangalore south school going children. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 31: 63-68 .
  54. Shrigiriwar M, Jadhav V (2013) Age estimation from physiological changes of teeth by Gustafson's method. Med Sci Law 53: 67-71 .
  55. Thevissen PW, Kaur J, Willems G (2012a) Human age estimation combining third molar and skeletal development. Int J Legal Med 126: 285-292 .
  56. Thevissen PW, Galiti D, Willems G. Human dental age estimation combining third molar(s) development and tooth morphological age predictors. Int J Legal Med 126: 883-887 .
  57. Timmins K, Liversidge H, Farella M, Herbison P, Kieser J (2012) The usefulness of dental and cervical maturation stages in New Zealand children for Disaster Victim Identification. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 8: 101-108 .
  58. Urzel V, Bruzek J (2013) Dental age assessment in children: a comparison of four methods in a recent French population. J Forensic Sci 58: 1341-1347 .
© 2016 Bérgamo AL, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
√

Download as

Order for reprints


Article Alerts

Subscribe to our articles alerts and stay tuned.


Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Help ?

Submit your next article Peertechz Publications, also join of our fulfilled creators. Submit a Manuscript

© Peertechz Publications Inc., 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1101, Los Angeles, California, 90024, USA