Dental maturity in Finnish children, estimated from the development of seven permanent mandibular teeth

Nyström, Marjatta; Haataja, J; Kataja, Matti; Evälahti, Marjut; Peck, Leena; Kleemola-Kujala, E

doi:10.3109/00016358608997720

Cited by 113 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previously, several studies investigated the suitability of the Demirjian method in populations that differed from Canadians (1,(6)(7)(8)10,(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)22,24,25). All of these studies have demonstrated that the Demirjian method overestimated age between 0.04 years (12) to 3.04 years (1).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of dental maturity of children aged 3.5 to 13.5 years using the Demirjian method in an Iranian population

Bagherian

Sadeghi

2011

J Oral Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radiographs of developing teeth are commonly used to assess dental maturity. The method for assessment of dental maturity first described by Demirjian is widely used and accepted. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of the Demirjian method in an Iranian population in order to compare the difference in dental maturity between these children with the data obtained in Canadian children and to determine whether there is a correlation between dental maturity and BMI-for-age. In this study, the orthopantomographs of 519 healthy children (264 boys and 255 girls) aged 3.5-13.5 years were reviewed and the dental age was determined by the Demirjian method. The chronological ages of the children were obtained by subtracting their birthdates from the date of taking the radiograph. Height and weight measurements were also recorded and the data were analyzed using SPSS-16 software. The Demirjian method overestimated the age by 0.15 and 0.21 years in boys and girls, respectively. Paired t-test analysis showed that these differences were statistically significant (P = 0.001). The increase in mean age difference initiated from the underweight group towards the overweight group, but this correlation was not statistically significant (P = 0.094). Based on the amount of differences between estimated dental age and chronological age in this investigation, the Demirjian method seems to be clinically applicable in the Iranian population. (J Oral Sci 53, 37-42, 2011)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of dental maturity of children aged 3.5 to 13.5 years using the Demirjian method in an Iranian population

Bagherian

Sadeghi

2011

J Oral Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While stages of tooth mineralization in dry bones are directly comparable to radiographic standards from living samples, living population standards for tooth emergence through the gingiva are not the same as observations of tooth emergence through the alveolus on dry bones (Demirjian, 1986;Merchant, 1973;Trodden, 1982). In addition, only a few published studies are suitable for use in age prediction because they include data for a number of teeth, consist of large reference samples and have an applicable methodology for reporting ages (Anderson et al, 1976;Demirjian et al, 1973;Demirjian and Goldstein, 1976;Haavikko, 1970;Kataja et al, 1989;Moorrees et al, 1963a,b;Nystrom et al, 1986). Other studies that use maturity scales (Demirjian et al, 1973;Demirjian and Goldstein, 1976) in reporting tooth formation chronologies are difficult for osteological researchers to apply.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy tests of tooth formation age estimations for human skeletal remains

Saunders¹,

DeVito²,

Herring³

et al. 1993

American J Phys Anthropol

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…By scoring the seven mandibular teeth to assess dental age, local disturbing factors of the oral cleft or a surgical trauma, could be excluded. However, the original scores for French-Canadian children could not be used for comparison with Dutch children, since the rate of maturation may be influenced by both heredity and environment (Jordan et al, 1966;Pelsmakers et al, 1997), and maturity standards may change from one population to another (Loevy, 1983;Nyström et al, 1986;Pöyry et al, 1989). Therefore, a control group of Dutch children without oral clefts was also investigated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, statistically significant differences were found for the place of birth (Pöyry et al, 1989) and for the population investigated (Nyström^a/., 1986;Loevy, 1983).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Bilateral cleft lip and palate. Maxillofacial growth and dental development

1998

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dental maturity in Finnish children, estimated from the development of seven permanent mandibular teeth

Cited by 113 publications

References 8 publications

Assessment of dental maturity of children aged 3.5 to 13.5 years using the Demirjian method in an Iranian population

Assessment of dental maturity of children aged 3.5 to 13.5 years using the Demirjian method in an Iranian population

Accuracy tests of tooth formation age estimations for human skeletal remains

Bilateral cleft lip and palate. Maxillofacial growth and dental development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About