Cargando…

The Demirjian versus the Willems method for dental age estimation in different populations: A meta-analysis of published studies

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of radiographic methods for dental age estimation is important for biological growth research and forensic applications. Accuracy of the two most commonly used systems (Demirjian and Willems) has been evaluated with conflicting results. This study investigates the accuracies...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Esan, Temitope Ayodeji, Yengopal, Veerasamy, Schepartz, Lynne A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5678786/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29117240
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186682
_version_ 1783277508845633536
author Esan, Temitope Ayodeji
Yengopal, Veerasamy
Schepartz, Lynne A.
author_facet Esan, Temitope Ayodeji
Yengopal, Veerasamy
Schepartz, Lynne A.
author_sort Esan, Temitope Ayodeji
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The accuracy of radiographic methods for dental age estimation is important for biological growth research and forensic applications. Accuracy of the two most commonly used systems (Demirjian and Willems) has been evaluated with conflicting results. This study investigates the accuracies of these methods for dental age estimation in different populations. METHODS: A search of PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, Database of Open Access Journals and Google Scholar was undertaken. Eligible studies published before December 28, 2016 were reviewed and analyzed. Meta-analysis was performed on 28 published articles using the Demirjian and/or Willems methods to estimate chronological age in 14,109 children (6,581 males, 7,528 females) age 3–18 years in studies using Demirjian’s method and 10,832 children (5,176 males, 5,656 females) age 4–18 years in studies using Willems’ method. The weighted mean difference at 95% confidence interval was used to assess accuracies of the two methods in predicting the chronological age. RESULTS: The Demirjian method significantly overestimated chronological age (p<0.05) in males age 3–15 and females age 4–16 when studies were pooled by age cohorts and sex. The majority of studies using Willems’ method did not report significant overestimation of ages in either sex. Overall, Demirjian’s method significantly overestimated chronological age compared to the Willems method (p<0.05). The weighted mean difference for the Demirjian method was 0.62 for males and 0.72 for females, while that of the Willems method was 0.26 for males and 0.29 for females. CONCLUSION: The Willems method provides more accurate estimation of chronological age in different populations, while Demirjian’s method has a broad application in terms of determining maturity scores. However, accuracy of Demirjian age estimations is confounded by population variation when converting maturity scores to dental ages. For highest accuracy of age estimation, population-specific standards, rather than a universal standard or methods developed on other populations, need to be employed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5678786
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56787862017-11-18 The Demirjian versus the Willems method for dental age estimation in different populations: A meta-analysis of published studies Esan, Temitope Ayodeji Yengopal, Veerasamy Schepartz, Lynne A. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: The accuracy of radiographic methods for dental age estimation is important for biological growth research and forensic applications. Accuracy of the two most commonly used systems (Demirjian and Willems) has been evaluated with conflicting results. This study investigates the accuracies of these methods for dental age estimation in different populations. METHODS: A search of PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, Database of Open Access Journals and Google Scholar was undertaken. Eligible studies published before December 28, 2016 were reviewed and analyzed. Meta-analysis was performed on 28 published articles using the Demirjian and/or Willems methods to estimate chronological age in 14,109 children (6,581 males, 7,528 females) age 3–18 years in studies using Demirjian’s method and 10,832 children (5,176 males, 5,656 females) age 4–18 years in studies using Willems’ method. The weighted mean difference at 95% confidence interval was used to assess accuracies of the two methods in predicting the chronological age. RESULTS: The Demirjian method significantly overestimated chronological age (p<0.05) in males age 3–15 and females age 4–16 when studies were pooled by age cohorts and sex. The majority of studies using Willems’ method did not report significant overestimation of ages in either sex. Overall, Demirjian’s method significantly overestimated chronological age compared to the Willems method (p<0.05). The weighted mean difference for the Demirjian method was 0.62 for males and 0.72 for females, while that of the Willems method was 0.26 for males and 0.29 for females. CONCLUSION: The Willems method provides more accurate estimation of chronological age in different populations, while Demirjian’s method has a broad application in terms of determining maturity scores. However, accuracy of Demirjian age estimations is confounded by population variation when converting maturity scores to dental ages. For highest accuracy of age estimation, population-specific standards, rather than a universal standard or methods developed on other populations, need to be employed. Public Library of Science 2017-11-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5678786/ /pubmed/29117240 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186682 Text en © 2017 Esan et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Esan, Temitope Ayodeji
Yengopal, Veerasamy
Schepartz, Lynne A.
The Demirjian versus the Willems method for dental age estimation in different populations: A meta-analysis of published studies
title The Demirjian versus the Willems method for dental age estimation in different populations: A meta-analysis of published studies
title_full The Demirjian versus the Willems method for dental age estimation in different populations: A meta-analysis of published studies
title_fullStr The Demirjian versus the Willems method for dental age estimation in different populations: A meta-analysis of published studies
title_full_unstemmed The Demirjian versus the Willems method for dental age estimation in different populations: A meta-analysis of published studies
title_short The Demirjian versus the Willems method for dental age estimation in different populations: A meta-analysis of published studies
title_sort demirjian versus the willems method for dental age estimation in different populations: a meta-analysis of published studies
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5678786/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29117240
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186682
work_keys_str_mv AT esantemitopeayodeji thedemirjianversusthewillemsmethodfordentalageestimationindifferentpopulationsametaanalysisofpublishedstudies
AT yengopalveerasamy thedemirjianversusthewillemsmethodfordentalageestimationindifferentpopulationsametaanalysisofpublishedstudies
AT schepartzlynnea thedemirjianversusthewillemsmethodfordentalageestimationindifferentpopulationsametaanalysisofpublishedstudies
AT esantemitopeayodeji demirjianversusthewillemsmethodfordentalageestimationindifferentpopulationsametaanalysisofpublishedstudies
AT yengopalveerasamy demirjianversusthewillemsmethodfordentalageestimationindifferentpopulationsametaanalysisofpublishedstudies
AT schepartzlynnea demirjianversusthewillemsmethodfordentalageestimationindifferentpopulationsametaanalysisofpublishedstudies