Department of Forensic Medicine, Laboratory of Research Anthropology and Bone Biomechanic (LR12SP14) Faculty of Medicine, University of Monastir, 5000, Tunisia.
Dentistry School, University of Monastir - Tunisia, Dento-Facial Biological and Clinical Approach Laboratory LR12ES10, Tunisia.
Forensic Sci Int. 2018 Oct;291:281.e1-281.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.08.007. Epub 2018 Aug 22.
This study aims to evaluate and compare the applicability of three dental methods for age estimation, including Demirjian's four teeth, Willems I, and Willems II methods in a sample of Tunisian children. Panoramic radiographs of 500 children (241 females, 259 males) aged between 5 and 15 years were examined. The mean absolute error (MAE) was performed to assess the accuracy of age estimation. Independent samples t-test was employed to compare the differences, the chronological age minus dental age (CA-DA), between sexes for the three methods. All of the three methods underestimated the chronological age on the average, and almost for all age groups. The discrepancy between the chronological age and the estimated age was most frequently observed for ages above 8 years for all methods. In our study, the Demirjian's four teeth method underestimated the chronological age by 0.45 years for males and 0.32 years for females, with no significant difference (p=0.124). Whereas the Willems I method is indicted for underestimating the chronological age by 0.40 years for males, and by 0.69 years for females. Willems II method underestimated age by 0.91, and 0.64 years for males and females, respectively. It is established that the Demirjian's four teeth method was more accurate in estimating the dental age than the Willems I and II methods, with a mean absolute error of 0.76 years for males and 0.79 years for females (MAE=1.10, and 0.98 years for the Willems I/1.02, and 0.92 years for the Willems II). According to the results, it is highly recommended that the Demirjian's four teeth method should be applied when estimating the dental age in Tunisian males and females. In forensic cases, when the sex is unknown or doubted, the Willems II method could be appropriate.
本研究旨在评估和比较三种牙科方法在突尼斯儿童样本中的适用性，包括 Demirjian 的四颗牙齿、Willems I 和 Willems II 方法。对 500 名年龄在 5 至 15 岁之间的儿童进行了全景 X 光检查。采用平均绝对误差（MAE）评估年龄估计的准确性。采用独立样本 t 检验比较三种方法中性别之间的差异，即实际年龄与牙龄（CA-DA）的差异。三种方法平均都低估了实际年龄，而且几乎所有年龄组都是如此。所有方法中，年龄在 8 岁以上时，实际年龄与估计年龄之间的差异最大。在我们的研究中，Demirjian 的四颗牙齿方法低估了男性的实际年龄 0.45 岁，低估了女性的实际年龄 0.32 岁，但差异无统计学意义（p=0.124）。而 Willems I 方法则表明男性低估了实际年龄 0.40 岁，女性低估了实际年龄 0.69 岁。Willems II 方法低估了男性和女性的年龄，分别为 0.91 和 0.64 岁。研究表明，Demirjian 的四颗牙齿方法在估计牙龄方面比 Willems I 和 II 方法更准确，男性的平均绝对误差为 0.76 岁，女性为 0.79 岁（MAE=1.10 和 0.98 岁用于 Willems I/1.02 和 0.92 岁用于 Willems II）。根据结果，强烈建议在估计突尼斯男性和女性的牙龄时应用 Demirjian 的四颗牙齿方法。在法医学案例中，当性别未知或怀疑时，Willems II 方法可能是合适的。
