Accuracy tests of tooth formation age estimations for human skeletal remains

Abstract

Estimations of age from tooth formation standards for a large (n = 282) sample of subadult skeletal remains from a 19th century historic cemetery sample were analyzed. The standards of Moorrees et al. (1963a,b) for the permanent and deciduous teeth, and Anderson et al. (1976) for the formation of permanent dentition were employed in a variety of combinations to calculate mean dental ages. Tests of accuracy and bias were made on a small sample (n = 17) of personally identified individuals, and age of attainment scores were compared to age of prediction scores for each individual. The resulting dental age distributions for the skeletal sample were compared to documented burial records for the cemetery to determine the representativeness of the skeletal sample. These comparisons showed little difference between age of attainment versus age of prediction methodologies. The standards of Moorrees et al. (1963a,b) were observed to provide the most accurate estimates of age with a standard deviation of one-half year. The standards of Anderson et al. (1976), while easier to use and more extensive, are problematic in that the original reference sample begins at three years of age, while the sample used by Moorrees and colleagues begins at birth. The skeletal age distributions compare well to the overall chronological age distribution for the cemetery. These results affirm that tooth formation age estimates for subadult skeletal remains from archaeological or forensic samples provide accurate assessments of age at both the individual and population level.

Accuracy of Dental Age in Nonadults: A Comparison of Two Methods for Age Estimation Using Radiographs of Developing Teeth

“…While comparing accuracy of different approaches can be problematic, as the way in which these methods derive an age estimate is fundamentally different, several researchers have compared the accuracy in order to understand how an age estimate is best derived (Hägg & Matsson 1985, Saunders et al 1993Liversidge 1994, Rai 2008). …”

“…For example, when considering the timing of fusion of secondary ossification centers throughout the skeleton researchers have discovered that rates for such events can be affected by the sex of the individual and their ancestry and birth century (Crowder & Austin 2005, Cunha et al 2009, Scheuer & Black 2004). However, others have cited differences in the environment and social economic status for differences in maturation rates (Saunders et al 1993, Olze et al 2004, Langley-Shirley & Jantz 2010, Shirley & Jantz 2011, Vucic et al 2014. Furthermore, due to the more fragile nature of immature bone and destructive taphonomic processes, as well as inadequate recovery techniques, non-adult individuals may only be partially represented (Gordon & Buikstra 1981, Pokines & De La Paz 2016Walker et al 1988.…”

“…While skeletal growth is commonly used to infer age, research indicates that the rate of skeletal maturation can be influenced by factors such as social economic status and secular change (Liversidge 2011, Saunders et al 1993. In contrast, the maturation of dentition is under greater genetic control and therefore, less susceptible to environmental influences (Cunha et al 2009).…”

Demirjian Metodu Farklı Ülkelerde Yaş Tayininde Kullanılabilir mi?

“…Dişlerin yaş tayininde kullanılmalarının en önemli nedenleri; vücudun en sert yapıları olup diş etkenlere dayanıklı olmaları ve endokrin sistem hastalıklarından fazlaca etkilenmemeleridir (5)(6)(7).…”

Forensic age estimation in living individuals: methodological considerations in the context of medico-legal practice

“…2 Dental mineralization, compared to skeletal development, is widely considered the most accurate indicator of chronological age in subadults; this is because the timing of dental development is less likely to be influenced by extrinsic environmental factors, such as nutritional status and chronic illness. 60 Accordingly, the radiographic visualization and analysis of tooth formation stages are the foundation of many established age estimation techniques. Furthermore, The Study Group on Forensic Age Diagnostics recommends the radiographic evaluation of dental status as one of the diagnostic procedures for age estimation in living individuals, 61 albeit it is worth considering AlQahtani's 62 suggestion that "The sequence of eruption and tooth count may be the only way to estimate the age of a living infant, as radiographs are contraindicated in this age group and the difficulty in obtaining a radiograph from an infant is predictable" (pp 149-150).…”