Wang Jian, Ji Fang, Zhai Yue, Park Hyun, Tao Jiang
Department of General Dentistry, Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Shanghai, 200011, China.
Department of Orthodontics, Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Shanghai, 200011, China.
J Forensic Leg Med. 2017 Nov;52:130-136. doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2017.09.003. Epub 2017 Sep 12.
Dental age (DA) has been widely accepted as a way to evaluate chronological age (CA) in recent years. However, the applicability of Willems method, as one of the most popular radiographic ways, still remains controversial in different areas. The aim of this study is to assess the difference between DA and CA with Willems method. Relevant studies published up to February 28th, 2017 were selected via PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM and manual search. Studies that examined Willems dental age and chronological age were selected. 11 articles with 9347 individuals whose age ranged from 3.0 to 18.9 years old were ultimately included in this study. The general polled data indicated that Willems method overestimated CA by 0.18 years and 0.06 years for males and females respectively. Subgroup analysis for ethnicity showed significant difference for different ethnicities. Our aggregated data demonstrated that Willems method may not be an overall applicable tool to estimate chronological age for the reason of the difference of ethnicity and rational validity is suggested when necessary.
近年来,牙齿年龄(DA)已被广泛接受为评估实足年龄(CA)的一种方法。然而,作为最常用的影像学方法之一,威廉姆斯方法的适用性在不同地区仍存在争议。本研究的目的是评估威廉姆斯方法在牙齿年龄和实足年龄之间的差异。通过PubMed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆、中国知网、中国生物医学文献数据库及手工检索,选取截至2017年2月28日发表的相关研究。选取研究威廉姆斯牙齿年龄和实足年龄的研究。本研究最终纳入了11篇文章,共9347名年龄在3.0至18.9岁之间的个体。汇总的总体数据表明,威廉姆斯方法对男性和女性实足年龄的高估分别为0.18岁和0.06岁。按种族进行的亚组分析显示不同种族之间存在显著差异。我们汇总的数据表明,由于种族差异,威廉姆斯方法可能不是一个普遍适用的估计实足年龄的工具,必要时建议进行合理性验证。