Hedge S, Shah K, Dixit U
Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Pacific Dental College and Hospital, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India.
Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Dr. D. Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
J Forensic Odontostomatol. 2016 Dec 1;34(2):21-34.
Dental age determination methods that require the assessment of all teeth are tedious and time-consuming. Adapted methods that assess fewer teeth may be more easily applicable. The present study compared the applicability of two adapted Häävikko methods which evaluate seven mandibular teeth (HAM1) and four reference teeth (HAM2) in a population of 5 to 15 year-old Indian children. The HAM1 method underestimated age by -0.17 ± 0.80 years, -0.29 ± 0.83 years and -0.22 ± 0.82 years in boys, girls and the total sample respectively, while the HAM2 method underestimated age by -0.34 ± 0.88 years, -0.51 ± 0.82 years and -0.41 ± 0.86 years in boys, girls and the total sample, respectively. Significant gender-based differences were observed in mean DA-CA with both methods (p < 0.05). While both methods could be used for age estimation of the present population, the HAM1 method was the more accurate of the two.
需要评估所有牙齿的牙龄确定方法既繁琐又耗时。评估牙齿数量较少的改良方法可能更易于应用。本研究比较了两种改良的哈伊维科方法在5至15岁印度儿童群体中的适用性，这两种方法分别评估七颗下颌牙齿（HAM1）和四颗参考牙齿（HAM2）。HAM1方法在男孩、女孩和总样本中分别低估年龄-0.17±0.80岁、-0.29±0.83岁和-0.22±0.82岁，而HAM2方法在男孩、女孩和总样本中分别低估年龄-0.34±0.88岁、-0.51±0.82岁和-0.41±0.86岁。两种方法在平均牙龄与实际年龄的差异上均观察到显著的性别差异（p<0.05）。虽然两种方法都可用于本群体的年龄估计，但在这两种方法中，HAM1方法更准确。
