Al-Juhani Abdulkreem, Binshalhoub Abdulaziz, Showail Saleh, Alraythi Mofareh, Alzahrani Abdulrahman, Almutiri Norah F, Alrasheed Raghad F, Alzahrani Mohammed J
Surgery, King Abdulaziz University Faculty of Medicine, Jeddah, SAU.
Forensic Medicine, Forensic Medicine Center, Riyadh, SAU.
Cureus. 2024 Dec 3;16(12):e75031. doi: 10.7759/cureus.75031. eCollection 2024 Dec.
Chronological age (CA) estimation is essential in medicine, forensics, and law. Teeth are often used for this due to their reliability. The Demirjian and the Nolla methods are used to estimate dental age (DA). Both methods have strengths and weaknesses; the Demirjian method usually overestimates age, whereas the Nolla method underestimates it. Their accuracy varies among different populations. Our objective is to compare the accuracy of these methods across various age groups and to probe the effect of gender. We searched PubMed, Scopus, the Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science for relevant articles until March 2024. We then screened for comparative studies using the Demirjian and the Nolla methods. We used the RevMan 5.4 software package (The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK) to compare the accuracy of both methods in estimating chronological age in both genders across age groups ranging from five to 16 years. All data were pooled using a random effects model, and relevant forest plots were generated. The accuracy was calculated based on the pooled mean difference between the chronological age and that estimated by each method. Our literature search identified 25 articles for inclusion in the review. The Demirjian method overestimated the age in males by 0.71 years in the six to 6.99 age group and an average overestimation of 0.5 years across all age groups. In females, the overestimation was 0.82 years in the 11-11.99 age group, but the average overestimation was 0.5 years. Overall, the Nolla method underestimated the age of males by 0.28 years and females by 0.25 years. Estimations from both methods were 0.7 years apart on average. In conclusion, while the Demirjian and Nolla methods have unique advantages, using them together can provide a more robust and reliable age estimation. Forensic practitioners can determine the best approach by considering population-specific accuracy, age group and gender, and the case context. Combining both techniques offers cross-verification, comprehensive assessment, bias mitigation, and enhanced reliability.
实足年龄（CA）估计在医学、法医学和法律领域至关重要。由于牙齿的可靠性，牙齿常被用于此。德米尔坚（Demirjian）法和诺拉（Nolla）法用于估计牙龄（DA）。这两种方法都有优缺点；德米尔坚法通常高估年龄，而诺拉法低估年龄。它们的准确性在不同人群中有所不同。我们的目标是比较这些方法在不同年龄组中的准确性，并探究性别的影响。我们在PubMed、Scopus、医学文摘数据库（EMBASE）、考科蓝图书馆和科学网中检索相关文章，直至2024年3月。然后，我们筛选了使用德米尔坚法和诺拉法的比较研究。我们使用RevMan 5.4软件包（英国伦敦考科蓝协作网）比较这两种方法在估计5至16岁各年龄组男女实足年龄方面的准确性。所有数据采用随机效应模型进行汇总，并生成相关森林图。准确性是根据实足年龄与每种方法估计年龄之间的汇总平均差值计算得出的。我们的文献检索确定了25篇文章纳入综述。在6至6.99岁年龄组中，德米尔坚法高估男性年龄0.71岁，在所有年龄组中平均高估0.5岁。在女性中，11至11.99岁年龄组的高估为0.82岁，但平均高估为0.5岁。总体而言，诺拉法低估男性年龄0.28岁，低估女性年龄0.25岁。两种方法的估计平均相差0.7岁。总之，虽然德米尔坚法和诺拉法有独特优势，但同时使用它们可以提供更稳健可靠的年龄估计。法医从业者可以通过考虑特定人群的准确性、年龄组和性别以及案件背景来确定最佳方法。结合这两种技术可提供交叉验证、全面评估、偏差缓解并提高可靠性。
