Further comments on the estimation of error associated with the Gustafson dental age estimation method.

Many researchers in the field of forensic odontology have questioned the error estimates stated in Gustafson's paper outlining the relationship between certain dental attributes and age. In a substantial re-working of Gustafson's data, Maples and Rice corrected Gustafson's regression statistics and found that the error associated with the age estimate was nearly double that claimed by Gustafson. We offer another statistical analysis of Gustafson's data and find that the errors calculated by Maples and Rice were also in error, being about a year too small. We give a formula for what we believe to be the correct treatment of errors in such cases, but conclude by observing that there is an urgent need for a more rigorous study of the traits first tabulated by Gustafson.