scholarly journals Forensic age estimation using new models of mathematical regression formula constructed with molar indexes: dental age assessment

2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-100
Author(s):  
Cristiana Palmela Pereira ◽  
Ana Rodrigues ◽  
Diana Augusto ◽  
Adriana Santos ◽  
Francisco Salvado ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
M. Yu. Honcharuk-Khomyn

A signifi cant number of currently available methods for dental age estimation among children and adolescents does not actually contribute for solving a key problem, which based on ensuring full correspondence between the data obtained during the calculation of the dental age and the actual chronological age of the person.The aim of the study – to conduct a comparative analysis of the effectiveness of different dental age estimation methods among children and adolescents with a selection of the most accurate approaches that can be implemented during forensic and forensic dental research.Materials and Methods. The Google Scholar Request Form (http://scholar.google.com) was used to search publication on relevant toping with additional using of the Advanced Search option. During the search, such specifi c types of operators as «+» were used to provide general named titles of the search («dental age», «children», «adolescents»), «search by the phrase» («forensic age estimation among children», «forensic age estimation among adolescents») and «in title» ( «dental age» and «children», «dental age» and «adolescents», «forensic age estimation» and «children», «forensic age estimation» and «adolescents»).Results and Discussion. Summing up the results of the analysis of the studied literature, we can conclude that at the present stage there is an insuffi cient level of systematization of existing methods for dental age estimation and methods for assessing the reliability of the results obtained in different age groups during the implementation of various methodological approaches. Therefore, testing the most accurate methods, obtained from the retrospective review of the literature, such as methods of Demirjian, Haavikko, Cameriere, Willems, and the development of a suitable algorithm for the recommendations for their combined use or modifi cation of certain stages during calculation and interpretation of data is relevant scientifi c and practical task that require actual solution.Conclusions. Conduction of further appropriate theoretical and practical studies with suffi cient amount of source material will allow to substantiate specifi c criteria for assessing the results of age estimation by dental status in different age groups with different methodological approaches, which in turn will simplify the forensic evaluation of the dento-facial system during the implementation of complex forensic examinations and investigations. Currently Demirjian, Haavikko, Cameriere, and Willems approaches can be identifi ed as the most accurate methods for determining the age of children and adolescents according to odontological data.


JKCD ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-11
Author(s):  
Sadaf Ambreen

Objectives: To compare Demirjian Dental scoring method with Greulich-Pyle (GP) Skeletal method of age estimation in pubertal children. Materials and Methods: Sample of the study included 267 male healthy subjects of 11-16 years of age group.. Demirjian Scoring system was utilized to evaluate the orthopantomograms to assess their Dental age and the Hand-Wrist radiographs were analyzed to calculate the skeletal age by utilizing GP atlas. Chronological age was obtained from the date of birth of the subject .Both methods were compared with one another and with the chronological age. It was a cross-sectional study and only healthy male subjects without any clinical abnormalities were included in the study. Results: A total of 267 male subjects of 11-16 years of age group were assessed by Demirjian and Greulich Pyle Methods. Both were compared with Chronological Age. Data obtained was statistically analyzed and the Student “t” test was applied in the study population. The mean difference between Chronolgical age and dental age was 0.69years and that of chronological age and skeletal age was 0.87 years. It was observed from dental age assessment that it does not differ much from the skeletal age. Conclusion: It was concluded that Demirjian method of Age Estimation is more precise than Greulich Pyle method of Age Estimation. Furthermore both methods can be used selectively in Medicolegal cases to access bone age which can be easily correlated to chronological age.


2020 ◽  
Vol 118 ◽  
pp. 104875
Author(s):  
Meng-qi Han ◽  
Si-xuan Jia ◽  
Chen-Xu Wang ◽  
Guang Chu ◽  
Teng Chen ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Zedeng Yang ◽  
Dan Wen ◽  
Jiao Xiao ◽  
Qianying Liu ◽  
Shule Sun ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (05) ◽  
pp. 510-522
Author(s):  
Jannick De Tobel ◽  
Christian Ottow ◽  
Thomas Widek ◽  
Isabella Klasinc ◽  
Håkan Mörnstad ◽  
...  

AbstractMedical imaging for forensic age estimation in living adolescents and young adults continues to be controversial and a subject of discussion. Because age estimation based on medical imaging is well studied, it is the current gold standard. However, large disparities exist between the centers conducting age estimation, both between and within countries. This review provides an overview of the most common approaches applied in Europe, with case examples illustrating the differences in imaging modalities, in staging of development, and in statistical processing of the age data. Additionally, the review looks toward the future because several European research groups have intensified studies on age estimation, exploring four strategies for optimization: (1) increasing sample sizes of the reference populations, (2) combining single-site information into multifactorial information, (3) avoiding ionizing radiation, and (4) conducting a fully automated analysis.


2018 ◽  
Vol 283 ◽  
pp. 128-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo Novaes Benedicto ◽  
Alana Cássia Silva Azevedo ◽  
Edgard Michel-Crosato ◽  
Maria Gabriela Haye Biazevic

2012 ◽  
Vol 219 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 158-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guo Li ◽  
Jiayin Ren ◽  
Shuping Zhao ◽  
Yuanyuan Liu ◽  
Na Li ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 68-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Schulz ◽  
Manfred Schiborr ◽  
Heidi Pfeiffer ◽  
Sven Schmidt ◽  
Andreas Schmeling

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document