Forensic Dental Age Estimation: Development of New Algorithm Based on the Minimal Necessary Databases

Abstract

Objectives Dental age determination relies on the presence of wisdom teeth, which can be assigned to specific age ranges according to their stage of development. The purpose of this study is to highlight the applicability of the Demirjian staging of layman compared to expert, as well as the inclusion of all four wisdom teeth in the overall assessment, in order to emphasize and critically highlight a precise age estimation in clinical practice, especially in the case of agenesis or the presence of less than all four wisdom teeth. Material and Methods: In this study, dental age determination is performed and compared by a trained layperson and an expert using 385 orthopantomograms. The radiographs of known chronological age from male patients in the age range of 11−22 years were acquired from the University Medical Center Mainz. All four wisdom teeth were radiologically viewed if present. Demirjian staging with stages A−H was applied, and regression analysis was performed. Results: The relationship between mineralization of wisdom teeth (18, 28, 38 and 48) and age was linear for all teeth (p < 0.01), except for tooth 18 (p = 0.02). Comparing the prediction of the four teeth individually revealed that the lower teeth gave better predictions than the upper ones (R2 ≥ 0.50 vs. R2 < 0.50). Conclusions: For clinical use, the mandibular wisdom teeth should be preferred when performing dental age estimation using the Demirjian staging method. As a result of the present analysis, two ways of determining dental age by wisdom teeth can be suggested. One is to take only tooth 38, with the formula: age = 3.3 + 0.73 × mineralization of tooth_38. The second recommendation would be to take tooth_48. If both are unavailable, the formula would be age = −0.5 + 0.94 × mineralization tooth_28. Utilizing tooth 18 would not lead to more precise results.

Cite this work

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

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

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