Dental age assessment in 6- to 14-year old German children: comparison of Cameriere and Demirjian methods

Abstract

BackgroundThe aim of the study was to compare two frequently used dental age estimation methods for accuracy.MethodsA total of 479 panoramic radiographs in age groups 6–14 years from a German population were evaluated. The dental age of 268 boys and 211 girls was assessed by means of the method of Demirjian (1973) and Cameriere (2006) and compared with their actual chronological age.ResultsDemirjan’s method showed an overestimation of dental age compared to chronological age in all age groups for boys (mean difference −0.16, p = 0.010, range −0.35 to 0.09), age group 9 showed an underestimation. Using the same method for girls (mean difference −0.18, p = 0.008, range −0.45 to 0.13), an overestimation could also be shown in all age groups except for age groups 8 and 13. Results for Cameriere’s method showed for boys (mean difference 0.07, p = 0.314, range −1.38 to 3.83) in age groups 6 to 11 an overestimation, but in age groups 12 to14 an underestimation. The results for girls (mean difference 0.08, p = 0.480, range −1.55 to 4.51) showed an overestimation for age groups from 6 to 10, and an underestimation in age groups 11 to 14.ConclusionsThe comparison shows an advantage of Demirjian’s method for both genders. While Cameriere’s method showed a higher inaccuracy in all age groups, Demirjian’s method showed more appropriate results for dental age estimation of the investigated German population. To avoid errors in forensic age estimation and to prevent misidentifications for defendants in criminal processes, further studies of more precise methods for age estimation for the German population are required.

Comparison of Cameriere’s and Demirjian’s Methods of Age Estimation among Children in Kerala: A Pilot Study

“…According to the study done by Wolf TG etal in 2016, the mean difference between chronologic age and dental age using Demirjian’s method for boys and girls were –0.6 and –0.18 respectively and by Cameriere’s method were 0.07 and 0.08. Cameriere’s method showed slight underestimation of real age 6 which is consistent to our result showing an underestimation by Cameriere’s method. When the individual age groups were analyzed in their study, Demirjian’s method showed an overestimation of age compared to the chronologic age in all age groups for boys (mean difference= –0.16, P=0.010) and for girls there was an overestimation of age except for one age group (8 and 13) (mean difference= –0.18, P=0.008).…”

“…The comparison shows an advantage for both genders. 6 Our study also showed an underestimation of age by Cameriere’s method. However, we have not grouped the patients according to age or gender.…”

“…Measurement of open apices was done for Cameriere’s method and stage of mineralizaion of tooth was the basis for Demirjian’s method. 6 …”

Estimación de la edad de acuerdo al método de Demirjian en niños de 5 a 16 años de la ciudad de Guayaquil, Ecuador

“…Por otro lado Wolf et al, en el año 2016 utilizaron los métodos de Cameriere y método de Demirjian; en el método de Demirjian mostraron una sobreestimación de la edad dental en comparación con la edad cronológica en todas las edades del grupo de niños en un rango -0,35 a 0,09 años; por otro lado, mientras que el grupo de niñas presento una subestimación en un rango de -0,45 a 0,13 años (14). En nuestro estudio el grupo de niñas en su mayoría tuvo sobreestimación y su rango fue de 0,24 a 0,98 años y una subestimación de -0,69 en varones se presentó igualmente una sobreestimación en la mayoría de los grupos etarios y los rangos fueron de 0,33 a 1,51 años y la subestimación de -0,65 años.…”

“…Ecuador no evidencia estudios que hayan estimado la edad dental con el método de Demirjian, siendo este el primero en presentarse, conjuntamente con una muestra considerable (617 radiografías panorámicas) en relación a otros estudios realizados en otros países (9,12,14,15,17,18).…”