Article2018

Impact of population‐specific dental development on age estimation using dental atlases

Donovan M. Adams · Claira E. Ralston · Rachel Sussman · Kelly Heim · Jonathan D. Bethard

20 citations0/0 files storedAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Dental Radiography and Imaging

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The steady development and subsequent eruption of the dentition is particularly useful for the estimation of age in juveniles. There are few studies that examine and test methods on a population-diverse sample. Our goal is to test the Ubelaker () and London Atlas (2010) dental charts on a sample representing several different population backgrounds to infer if refinement for population-specific standards should be developed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The first and second authors examined panoramic radiographs of 335 individuals from the James K. Economides Orthodontic Collection blind to chronological age, sex, and ancestry and scored using both dental atlases. RESULTS: The age of Native Americans and African Americans was generally overestimated, suggesting faster rates of development. European Americans and New Mexico Hispanics, while not always showing the highest success rates, generally were closer to the correct age than other ancestry groups. The overall success rate for Ubelaker () was 80.00% for both observers, while the London Atlas was significantly lower at approximately 21.79-23.28%. Accuracy rates did not differ significantly between ancestry groups, though patterns were evident regarding under- or over-estimation of age. DISCUSSION: The present study demonstrates that incorrect age estimations were typically still within 1.5 years of the actual age. Ubelaker () had higher rates of success due to broader age ranges. The results suggest that though accuracy rates did not significantly differ, different developmental rates may affect age estimates and population-specific standards should be considered for known-ancestry individuals, while aging standards constructed from a diverse sample should be utilized for unknown-ancestry cases.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.

References

1994Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains 1973A new system of dental age assessment.2010Brief communication: The London atlas of human tooth development and eruption 1996Dental Anthropology 1985Dental wear in the Libben population: Its functional pattern and role in the determination of adult skeletal age at death 1995Age estimation of adults from dental radiographs 1976New systems for dental maturity based on seven and four teeth 1993The A.B.F.O. Study of Third Molar Development and Its Use as an Estimator of Chronological Age

Cited by

2025Dental age estimation using a convolutional neural network algorithm on panoramic radiographs: A pilot study in Indonesia 2022Age estimation using London Atlas methodology: A systematic review and meta-analysis 2023Age Estimation in 0–8-Year-Old Children in France: Comparison of One Skeletal and Five Dental Methods 2022Reference and target sample age distribution impacts between model types in dental developmental age estimation

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.