Validity of the Demirjian method for dental age estimation when applied to Norwegian children

Abstract

Dental age was studied in a sample of 261 Norwegian children by using the maturity standards of Demirjian & Goldstein (1976) to examine the applicability of these standards as a reference for overall dental maturity in a Norwegian population. The sample comprised 128 boys and 133 girls included in 'the Oslo Growth Material', from whom orthopantomograms (total, 783) had been longitudinally obtained, with intervals of about 3 years and covering 3 age spans (5.5-6.5 years, 8.5-9.5 years, and 11.5-12.5 years), each divided into 3 half-year age groups. Reliability was analyzed by repeated assessments of 134 of the radiographs, and the overall mean difference between duplicate dental age determinations was 0.5 months for intra- and 1.8 months for inter-examiner comparisons. The Norwegian children were generally somewhat advanced in dental maturity compared with the French-Canadian reference sample. Among the boys the mean difference between dental age and chronologic age varied in the different age groups from 1.5 to 4.0 months. Among the girls the difference increased with age, varying from 0 to 3.5 months in the younger age groups (5.5 to 9.0 years) and from 4.5 to 7.5 months in the age groups 9.5 years and above. The variability in individual dental age was marked and increased with age. For the older age groups 95% of the individual age estimates were within +/-2 years of the real age. The applied standards appear to be adequate for studying dental age in groups of children from a Norwegian population. Given the considerable individual variation in dental maturity, estimation of chronologic age in individual children should be supplemented by other indicators of biologic maturity.

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

“…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).…”

“…Orthodontists use such knowledge to predict the timing of particular treatments and pediatricians may be interested in knowing whether the dental maturity of a child with a certain disease has been delayed or advanced (2)(3)(4). Although there are skeletal, dental and sexual maturity indicators, dental maturity indicators have received more attention because they exhibit less variability compared with sexual and skeletal age estimation methods that are more affected by the endocrine and nutritional status of children and adolescents (5)(6)(7). Dental age can be assessed mainly by two methods: I) according to the status of tooth emergence in the oral cavity, and II) according to the stages of tooth formation observed in radiographs.…”

Forensic Age Estimation in Unaccompanied Minors and Young Living Adults

“…The widespread use of this method as an infant age assessment procedure has meant that the results of the Demirjian study have been tested in other populations. Numerous studies over recent decades show a slight delay in maturation of the original French-Canadian population, causing overestimation when the original results of the method are applied to other populations (Bolaños et al, 2003;Davis & Hagg, 1994;Eid et al, 2002;Frucht et al, 2000;Koshy & Tandom, 1998;Liversigde etl., 1999;Loevy & Goldberg, 1999;MacKenna et al, 2002;Nykanen et al, 1998;Nystro et al, 1986;Prabhakar et al, 2002;Staaf et al, 1991;Willems et al, 2001). The aforesaid overestimation varies between some months and several years in age, and it is recommended that standard values based on studies of the same population to which the method is applied are used.…”

Dental and Skeletal Maturity- A Biological Indicator of Chronologic Age

“…The finding that overestimation was more pronounced in the older children was also made by Nykanen et al, [12]. A possible reason for the difference in estimated age by S&M method from CA could be that it used anatomical representations of teeth that mask internal tooth structures and with no information regarding eruption reference [13].…”