Skip to main content
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2021 Apr 27;11:9024. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-88379-1

Comparison of two established 2D staging techniques to their appliance in 3D cone beam computer-tomography for dental age estimation

Matthias Zirk 1,, Joachim E Zoeller 1, Max-Philipp Lentzen 1, Laura Bergeest 1, Johannes Buller 1, Max Zinser 1
PMCID: PMC8079438  PMID: 33907220

Abstract

For medicolegal purposes, orthodontic or orthognathic treatment various stomatological staging technique for age estimation with appliance of conventional radiographic images have been published. It remains uninvestigated if cone beam computer-tomography delivers comparable staging results to the conventional radiographic stages of third molar analysis. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of 312 patients aged 13–21 years. Dental age estimation staging technique, introduced by Nolla and Demirjian, were applied on the left lower third molar imaged by conventional panoramic radiographs and cone beam computer-tomography. It was investigated if 2D and 3D imaging presented different staging results for dental age estimation. In 21% the Demirjian’s staging differed by a single stage between 2 and 3D images. The greatest congruence (87%) between 2 and 3D images was revealed for stage 7 (G). In contrary, stage 5 (E) presented the lowest level of congruence with 47.4%. The categorization of Nolla revealed divergences in staging for than two categorical variables in Nolla’s stages 3, 4, 5 and 6. In general, the analysis of the data displayed the divergence for Nolla’s stages 4–8. The staging results for 2D and 3D imaging in accordance to the rules of Nolla and Demirjian showed significant differences. Individuals of 18 years may present immature third molars, thus merely an immature third molar cannot reject legal majority. Nolla’s and Demirjian’s 2D and 3D imaging present significantly different staging results.

Subject terms: Anatomy, Medical research, Signs and symptoms

Introduction

The estimation of age remains part of active research in forensic science1. Various staging techniques have been published before, however, merely some staging technique are considered to have an acceptable scientific basis1,2. Moreover, for accurate age estimation of living individuals in legal proceedings a series of clinical and radiological examinations are carried out. The age estimation procedure often includes a physical examination, dental examination with dental status and an X-ray of the dentition and an X-ray examination of the left hand or in addition the clavicles3. Thus, stomatological staging techniques remain a key part of age estimation. In particular in a medicolegal context, the development of the third molar aids as an age indicator especially in the adolescence4. The third molar’s development is mostly impacted by genetics, whereas environmental factors seem to have a lesser effect on the third molars development5. The dental development follows a regular pattern and is radiologically assessable6. In comparison to the skeletal development, the dental development is delayed and slower6. For radiographic imaging in age estimation, a great variety of 2D studies have been conducted, more recently several 3D studies with focus on the dental pulp have emerged7,8. However, there is a need for more retrospective investigation of 3D data to create feasible tools for age determination with 3D imaging9.

The two-dimensional radiographs, even if properly executed, are limited in providing an accurate view of a three-dimensional object. Consequently, in modern dentistry cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) have become a useful diagnostic and scientific tool to evaluate the dentition10,11. Furthermore, dental imaging is less invasive than diagnostics based on osseous analysis, yet has shown similar or superior accuracy in adults7.

In age estimation several schemes have been applied12. The Demirjian’s method, introduced in 1973, is a classification of mineralization stages from the first incisor to the second molar of the left mandible12,13. Hereby, each tooth is assigned a stage from A (beginning mineralization) to H (apex closed), the stages can be converted into maturity scores. Finally, an age estimation is obtained by the sum of the maturity scores12,13. Commonly, the Demirjian’s method is applicable for individuals up to 16 years of age as the evaluation method is confined to the development of the permanent second molar14. However, the attainment of 18 years is an important mark in medico-legal purposes, thus earlier studies applied the Demirjian’s method to the third molar for age estimation1517.

The Nolla’s method was first described in 1960 for age estimation18. Nowadays, it is one of the least frequently used and tested staging technique, despite its effectiveness19. In Nolla’s method each tooth is assigned to a certain stage ranging from stage 0 (the absence of crypt) or stage 1 (presence of a crypt) to stage 10 (the completion of the tooth root’s apical end)18. Recently, Nolla’s method has been applied on the third molar in combination with the third molar index (I3M) to discriminate adults from minors with high specificity20. Further studies demonstrated the applicability of Nolla’s method to the third molar in age estimation as a useful tool21,22. In literature, several studies have confirmed the results of Nolla’s method to be no less reliable than further staging techniques such as the more commonly applied Demirjian’s method21,23,24.

The age estimation staging technique, introduced by Nolla and Demirjian, are conducted with two-dimensional X-ray technique, e.g. panoramic radiographic images25. More data seems necessary to verify the applicability of the staging techniques of Nolla and Demirjian in three-dimensional CBCT scans.

Thus, we investigated if the dental staging techniques of Nolla and Demirjian for conventional 2D panoramic radiographs and 3D cone beam computer-tomography images present different results for adultescents and young adults. Furthermore, we investigated how 3D imaging of the third molar can aid in age estimation with the staging techniques described by Nolla and Demirjian.

Results

Comparison of Demirjian’s method in 2D/3D on third lower molar

In the female cohort 87 panoramic radiographs and CBCT were assessed. Hereby 59 patients presented matching results in the 2D and 3D radiographic diagnostics and therefore were labeled with the same stage. Whereas 22 females were rated differently in the 3D diagnostic compared to their results in the 2D evaluation. The largest divergence was detected in stage 2 (fusion of cusps13) with 66.7%. Stage 6 (root length is equal to or greater than the crown height13) presented the second largest divergence between the evaluation of 2D and 3D images with 11.8%. In summary, categorial divergence by a single stage was detected in 5.7% between 2 and 3D images (Table 1). Furthermore, categorial divergence by more than single stage was present in 1.2%. The categorization of Demirjian revealed significantly diverse staging results in comparison of 2D and 3 D images of female patients, p < 0.05 (Fig. 1).

Table 1.

Patient’s age with Demirjian’s categorical staging.

Stages Male age—2D Male age—3D Female—2D Female—3D
1 (A) 13.0658 ±  12.8753 ± 0.43843 12.5288 ± 0.44170
2 (B) 13.4493 ± 1.27956 13.5900 ± 1.15830 14.0347 ± 1.81537 12.9352 ± 0.65791
3 (C) 14.1295 ± 1.28633 13.5822 ± 1.53011 13.8614 ± 1.36235 14.6504 ± 2.24675
4 (D) 14.7696 ± 1.96717 14.3353 ± 1.49189 15.9635 ± 1.99192 15.0047 ± 1.60657
5 (E) 16.2643 ± 1.58383 16.3745 ± 1.68727 15.8849 ± 1.20645 16.6166 ± 1.75269
6 (F) 16.8819 ± 1.37914 16.7378 ± 1.49705 16.5679 ± 1.63789 16.1288 ± 1.34381
7 (G) 17.5721 ± 1.11853 17.5238 ± 1.16615 17.2137 ± 1.95771 17.1345 ± 1.46936
8 (H) 18.6712 ± 0.87519 18.7576 ± 0.81567 18.8277 ± 1.35279 19.0997 ± 1.16221

Mean and standard deviation (SD) for gender specific age in respect to the staged variables of 2D and 3D images. For variables 2D and 3D images presented significant correlations p < 0.05. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated as r2D = 0.754 for 2D images and as r3D = 0.767.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

The congruent and incongruent ratings by Demerjian’s method are presented for the female cohort.

In the male cohort 150 panoramic radiographs and CBCT were assessed. Hereby 59 patients presented matching results in the 2D and 3D radiographic diagnostics and therefore were labeled with the same stage. In 31 cases (21%) the categorial staging differed by a single stage between 2 and 3D images. The greatest congruence (87%) between 2 and 3D images was revealed for stage 7 (parallel walls of the root canal and partially open apex13. In contrary, stage 5 presented the lowest level of congruence with 47.4%. See Table 1 as well. The categorization of Demirjian revealed significantly diverse staging results in comparison of 2D and 3 D images of male patients, p < 0.05 (Fig. 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

The congruent and incongruent ratings by Demerjian’s method are presented for the male cohort.

In comparison, 2D and 3D analysis of Demirjian’s categorical variables and patient’s age a linear increase of the 2D-graph is observed, whereas the 3D-graph presents a decrease between stages 5 and 6 (Fig. 3). The none-linear increase of 3D-graph of Demirjian’s categorical variables was particularly observed in the female cohort. In the female cohort a decrease from stage 5 to stage 6 in regard to the female patient’s age was observed (Fig. 4). Notably, the male cohort demonstrates a steady increase between Demirjian’s stage 5 and 6 (Fig. 4). For the male cohort, the graph possesses a slight decrease between Demirjian’s stage 2 and 3 as well as 5 and 6 (Fig. 4). In regard to Demirjian’s method different staging results were obtained from the analysis of 2D and 3D radiographic images.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Staging technique of all patients for 2D and 3D analysis. 2D and 3D analysis of Demirjian’s staging technique and patient’s age of both genders is displayed.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Categorical staging in comparison of both genders in 3D analysis. The slopes of Demerjian’s stages for the female and male cohort in relation to the total cohort are illustrated.

Furthermore, the evaluation of the 3D images (CBCT) revealed significantly differed Demirjian’s stages between several age groups, the results are displayed in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2.

Patient’s age with Nolla’s categorical staging.

Stages Male age—2D Male age—3D Female—2D Female—3D
1 12.3000 ± 0.11817 12.3836 ± 
2 13.4164 ± 1.28781 13.3068 ± 1.40819 13.4952 ± 1.13565 12.7370 ± 0.50932
3 14.3514 ± 1.58491 14.1732 ± 1.37438 14.6712 ± 2.37647 14.7425 ± 1.92391
4 14.1041 ± 1.19309 14.1063 ± 1.67913 13.7282 ± 1.16992 14.7553 ± 2.52858
5 14.6677 ± 2.31089 13.0904 ± 1.25538 15.7089 ± 2.55713 14.5242 ± 1.48895
6 15.0770 ± 1.62411 15.0322 ± 1.36805 15.9464 ± 1.70621 15.4293 ± 1.39593
7 16.5790 ± 1.56545 16.2385 ± 1.88469 16.5817 ± 1.67506 16.7060 ± 1.89137
8 17.1553 ± 1.32243 17.1993 ± 1.34244 16.5365 ± 1.30545 16.0858 ± 1.27075
9 17.5721 ± 1.11853 16.93 ± 1.246 17.2137 ± 1.95771 16.58 ± 1.505
10 18.6712 ± 0.87519 18.27 ± 0.785 18.22 ± 1.394 18.60 ± 1.174

Intra- and inter-examiner reliability in ICC value were calculated as 0.98 (p ≤ 0.05) for Demirjian’s method and 0.96 for Nolla’s method (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 3.

Age group with significant different presentation of Demirjian’s stages.

B ≠ H C ≠ H D ≠ H E ≠ H
C ≠ G D ≠ G E ≠ G
C ≠ F E ≠ F

Comparison of Nolla’s method in 2D/3D on third lower molar

In the female cohort 89 panoramic radiographs and CBCT were assessed. Hereby 61 patients presented matching results in the 2D and 3D radiographic diagnostics and therefore were labeled with the same stage (Table 2). Whereas 25 females (28%) were rated differently in the 3D diagnostic compared to their results in the 2D evaluation. The greatest divergence was detected in stage 6 of Nolla’s categorical staging18. In stage 6 our investigation found 7 patients (~ 8%) differently rated by a single stage (18%). Results are displayed in detail in Fig. 5. Nolla’s stage 3 was equally confirmed for females in analysis of 2D and 3D images18.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

The congruent and incongruent ratings by Nolla’s method are presented for the female cohort.

In the male cohort 150 panoramic radiographs and CBCT were assessed. Hereby 102 patients presented matching results in the 2D and 3D radiographic diagnostics and therefore were labeled with the same stage. The categorical staging according to the rules set by Nolla18 revealed divergences in staging for more up to 2 categorical variables in Nolla’s stages 3, 4, 5 and 6. In general, the analysis of the data displayed the divergence for Nolla’s stages 4–8 (Fig. 6). The categorization of Nolla revealed significantly diverse staging results in comparison of 2D and 3 D images of male patients, p < 0.05 (Fig. 7). Likewise, significant differences were documented in 2D versus 3D images (Fig. 8). Age group differences for Nolla’s stage are displayed in Table 4.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Nolla’s Categorical staging in comparison of both genders in 3D analysis. The slopes of Nolla’s stages for the female and male cohort in relation to the total cohort are illustrated.

Figure 7.

Figure 7

The congruent and incongruent ratings by Nolla’s method are presented for the male cohort.

Figure 8.

Figure 8

Nolla’s Categorical staging of all patients for 2D and 3D analysis. 2D and 3D analysis of Nolla’s staging technique and patient’s age of both genders is displayed.

Table 4.

Age group with significant different presentation of Nolla’s stages.

2 ≠ 10
2 ≠ 8

Discussion

In this study, we investigated two established staging techniques for age estimation and applied their rules on the third molar. The third molar was chosen because of its individual development in adolescence and young adulthood26,27. In age estimation various classification methods for the cycles of dental formation have been tested27. Hereby, Demirjian’s method is the most commonly investigated, whereas fewer studies on Nolla’s method have been published27. In general, the majority of studies evaluate dental age on the basis of conventional 2D panoramic images, these images may partially distorted by overlapping dental structures28. Hence, an investigation of the applicability of established age estimation staging techniques in 3D imaging seems reasonable.

Initially, the rules set by Nolla et al. and Demirjian et al. were established for age estimation of children based on the development of the permanent teeth18,29,30. However, the accuracy of dental age estimation based on the development of the permanent teeth decreases in juveniles and adolescents with the exception of the analysis of third molars29,31. For third molar analysis, the cone beam computer-tomography allows an accurate diagnostic imaging through its cross-sectional views and contains more detailed information in comparison to the conventional panoramic imaging32.

For Demirjian’s method, an overestimation of age is described in previous studies as well as an underestimation of age in comparison to the patient’s chronological age33. In our study, we detected an incongruence between 2 and 3D categorical staging in accordance to Demirjian’s rules. In general, the higher stages above 6 (F—the root length is equal or greater to the crown’s height) show a greater congruence of the staging categories (Figs. 3, 4). In the higher categorical stages of Demirjian method, 3 D analysis revealed no clear tendency of neither an overestimation nor an underestimation in our cohort. The original proposal of Demirjian’s dental maturity were derived from the French–Canadian population, however up to this day, their applicability in various populations remains a point of debate13,30,34. In assessment of the dentition, especially for dental root morphology, CBCT images possess better sensitivity and specify compared to 2D radiographs35. Thus, the accuracy of Demirjian’s categorical staging should be improved by a CBCT based estimation. In our study, we observed a positive linear slope of Demirjian 2D data in regard to the categorical staging. Notably, for the categorical stages 5 (E) and 6 (F) of our study’s cohort, the Demirjian 3 D data’s slope possesses a slight decrease before its incline to categorical stage 7 (G). Thus, this phenomenon might indicate that age-estimation based on a three-dimensional view may detect advanced Demirjian stages in adolescence (15–16 years of age). In contrary, lower Demirjian stage were noted earlier adolescence (13–14 years of age), see Fig. 1. Yet, a larger cohort is needed to definitely verify this observation. Notably, in consideration of the third molar variability in its development, eruption and anatomy the original Demirjian's method excluded wisdom teeth13,36.

In age estimation, gender has to be considered. In comparison of males and females in the 3D analysis, males reached Demirjian stages 3 (C) and 4 (D) earlier in the earlier adolescence (13–14 years of age). In particular, females presented the Demirjian stages 6 (F) and 7 (G) earlier in adolescence and late adolescence. To some extent, this gender difference may be attributed to faster biological and dental maturation of females which results in a higher dental age in comparison to females’ chronological age37. However, biological variation found in boys have been reported to be larger than the variation found in girls38 which can explain the difference illustrated in our data (Figs. 2, 4).

Furthermore, we included Nolla’s staging system to this study. Despite the less frequent appliance of Nolla’s method in comparison to Demirjian’s method, Nolla’s method has proven itself to be a reliable tool for age estimation24,39.

In consideration of our data, 2D and 3D imaging presented Nolla’s stage 7 for adolescence at the age of 16 years with great congruence, Figs. 3 and 4. On the other hand, the stage 6 was detected earlier in the 3D CBCT-based age estimation. In literature, the calcification of the third molar’s crown (Nolla stage 6, Demirjian’s stage D) is documented with a great variation among different ethnic populations22. Thus, our cohort’s data may reflect the heterogenic European population resided in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.

Moreover, three dimensional CBCT images confirmed results from an earlier study on third molars that males reach higher stage of Nolla’s classification before females40. Likewise, in our study’s cohort males reached earlier Nolla’s stages 3–7 earlier than females. In addition, CBCT images reveal more advanced stages at an earlier age than the conventional panoramic images, Figs. 3 and 4. This observation verifies earlier reports of under-estimation associated to the Nolla’s method applied for conventional panoramic images is consistent with the findings of other investigators19,41.

Previous investigations have shown a relatively low inter- and intraobserver disagreement in appliance of Nolla’s method on the second dentition and the third molar22. Up to a certain limit, Demirjian’s and Nolla’s staging techniques delivered comparable results. For example, the crown is completed in Demirjian stage 4 (D) and in Nolla stage 6, but the investigation are mainly limited by the cohort’s own ethnicity22,42. Therefore, an age estimation method based on the third molar may lack accuracy in estimation of minors43. This observation is confirmed by data in our comparisons of 2D and 3D radiographic images. On the contrary and in line with our study’s data, age estimation based on the third molar is a reliable tool in determination of the adult/child transition43. Furthermore, age estimation based on the third molar gains a greater level of accuracy if a 3D imaging tool, such as a CBCT, is applied. Still, there is no dividing line with a 100% certainty to adult age. However, a fully mature third molar signifies adult age with a high likelihood, yet a significant proportion of individuals above the age of 18 have immature third molars44. Thus, in order to distinguish between adolescence and adulthood, a completely matured third molar is conclusive, but an immature third molar is argumentative45. This perception is confirmed by our 3D CBCT data.

Conclusion

Age estimation conducted by the rules of Demirjian and Nolla’s method may detect more advanced stages in minors. Nolla’s and Demirjian’s 2D and 3D imaging present significantly different staging results. Adulthood can only be safely assumed if the third molar is fully matured. In contrary, a vast number of individuals above the age of 18 present immature third molars.

Methods

Study design

The design of this study was a retrospective cross-sectional study of conventional panoramic radiographs and cone beam computer-tomography images of 312 patients aged 13–21 years who were treated in a single University Hospital for either dislocated lower jaw fractures or orthognathic surgery between January 2002 and April 2018.

Sample

312 radiographic images of European patients were analyzed. The study’s cohort contained 127 females (40.7%) and 150 males (59.3%). The cohorts mean age was 16.2 (± 2.1 SD) years. The median was at 17 years. The chronological age for each patient was calculated by subtracting the date of the radiograph diagnostic from the date of birth after having converted both to a decimal age.

4 age groups were defined:

  • Earlier adolescence (EA)—13 to 14 years of age.

  • Adolescence (A)—15 to 16 years of age.

  • Late adolescence (LA)—17 to 18 years of age.

  • Young adults (YA)—19 to 21 years of age.

Applied staging techniques for dental age determination

The developmental stages of the third molars were assessed according to the principles determined by Nolla18 and Demirjian13. In Nolla’s publication the age was determined by completion of calcification of permanent teeth which is divided into the stages 0–1018. In difference to Nolla’s publication, we applied the rules set by Nolla18 on the development of the third molar to investigated patient’s dental age. Likewise, we applied the method of dental age determination published by Demirjian13 for the permanent teeth of the lower left jaw (the first incisor to the second molar) on the third molar. In difference to Demirjian’s publication13, we labeled the stages numbers 1–8.

All staging techniques were solely applied in assessment of the lower jaw’s right third molars to maintain uniformity of the data. Two examiners (M.Zk. and L.B.) observed the radiographic images after a period of mutual calibration. To test intra- and inter-examiner reliability, two different examiners staged the development of third molars randomly selected radiographs. Each examiner repeated the process after 4 weeks (intra-examiner), and data from each examiner were compared (inter-examiner) to assess reliability. Two further examiners (J.B. and M.Z.) refereed the results.

Statistics

Data were analyzed using SPSS statistical software (SPSS Version 24.0; IBM, Munich, Germany). For interval-scaled parameters the Bravais–Pearson coefficient was determined for the 2‐tailed correlation. Continuous variables were compared with the non-parametric Mann–Whitney-U, Wilcoxon signed-rank test or Kruskal–Wallis test, as appropriate. The Bonferroni adjustment was used to counteract the problem of multiple comparisons. The level of significance for p-values was set < 0.05. Descriptive analysis was performed as well.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study was approved by the local University Clinic of Cologne Germany Ethnic Committee (No.: 19-1525).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from parents/legally authorized representatives in case of minor patients (below 18 years of age) and informed consent was obtained from all other adult patients included in the study.

Author contributions

J.Z., M.Zk. and J.B. designed and M.Zk., L.B. and J.B. planned the study. M.Zk. and L.B. collected the images and performed the measurements. J.B. and M.Z. refereed the results. M.Zk., M.L. and J.B. did the statistical analysis. M.Zk. wrote the paper. M.L., J.Z., M.Z. and J.B. commented on and all authors revised the manuscript.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.De Tobel J, et al. Multi-factorial age estimation: A Bayesian approach combining dental and skeletal magnetic resonance imaging. Forensic Sci. Int. 2020;306:110054. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.110054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Marrero-Ramos, M.D., Lopez-Urquia, L., Suarez-Soto, A., Sanchez-Villegas, A. & Vicente-Barrero, M. Estimation of the age of majority through radiographic evaluation of the third molar maturation degree. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cirugia Bucal (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 3.Schmeling A, et al. Criteria for age estimation in living individuals. Int. J. Legal Med. 2008;122:457. doi: 10.1007/s00414-008-0254-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ashifa, N., Parakh, M.K. & Ulaganambi, S. Estimation of age using third molar development: A radiological cross-sectional study. Am. J. Forensic Med. Pathol. (2020). [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 5.Trakiniene G, et al. Genetic and environmental influences on third molar root mineralization. Arch. Oral Biol. 2019;98:220–225. doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2018.11.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.De Salvia A, Calzetta C, Orrico M, De Leo D. Third mandibular molar radiological development as an indicator of chronological age in a European population. Forensic Sci. Int. 2004;146:S9–S12. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.09.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Marroquin TY, et al. Age estimation in adults by dental imaging assessment systematic review. Forensic Sci. Int. 2017;275:203–211. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.03.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Pinchi V, et al. A new age estimation procedure based on the 3D CBCT study of the pulp cavity and hard tissues of the teeth for forensic purposes: A pilot study. J. Forensic Leg. Med. 2015;36:150–157. doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2015.09.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bjørk MB, Kvaal SI. CT and MR imaging used in age estimation: A systematic review. J. Forensic Odontostomatol. 2018;36:14–25. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kazmi S, Manica S, Revie G, Shepherd S, Hector M. Age estimation using canine pulp volumes in adults: A CBCT image analysis. Int. J. Legal Med. 2019;133:1967–1976. doi: 10.1007/s00414-019-02147-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Zirk M, et al. Odontogenic sinusitis maxillaris: A retrospective study of 121 cases with surgical intervention. J. Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surg. Off. Publ. Eur. Assoc. Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surg. 2017;45:520–525. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.01.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Gelbrich, B., Carl, C. & Gelbrich, G. Comparison of three methods to estimate dental age in children. Clin. Oral Investig. (2019). [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 13.Demirjian A, Goldstein H, Tanner JM. A new system of dental age assessment. Hum. Biol. 1973;45:211–227. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Jayaraman J, Wong HM, King NM, Roberts GJ. The French–Canadian data set of Demirjian for dental age estimation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Forensic Leg. Med. 2013;20:373–381. doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2013.03.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lewis AJ, et al. Demirjian's method in the estimation of age: A study on human third molars. J. Forensic Dent. Sci. 2015;7:153–157. doi: 10.4103/0975-1475.155081. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Acharya AB. Accuracy of predicting 18 years of age from mandibular third molar development in an Indian sample using Demirjian's ten-stage criteria. Int. J. Legal Med. 2011;125:227–233. doi: 10.1007/s00414-010-0522-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Orhan K, Ozer L, Orhan AI, Dogan S, Paksoy CS. Radiographic evaluation of third molar development in relation to chronological age among Turkish children and youth. Forensic Sci. Int. 2007;165:46–51. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.02.046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Nolla, C. The development of the permanent teeth. J. Dent. Child 254–266 (1960).
  • 19.Tomás LF, Mónico LSM, Tomás I, Varela-Patiño P, Martin-Biedma B. The accuracy of estimating chronological age from Demirjian and Nolla methods in a Portuguese and Spanish sample. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14:160–160. doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-14-160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Antunovic M, et al. The third molars for indicating legal adult age in Montenegro. Leg. Med. (Tokyo) 2018;33:55–61. doi: 10.1016/j.legalmed.2018.05.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bolanos MV, Moussa H, Manrique MC, Bolanos MJ. Radiographic evaluation of third molar development in Spanish children and young people. Forensic Sci. Int. 2003;133:212–219. doi: 10.1016/S0379-0738(03)00037-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Karadayi B, et al. Radiological age estimation: Based on third molar mineralization and eruption in Turkish children and young adults. Int. J. Legal Med. 2012;126:933–942. doi: 10.1007/s00414-012-0773-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Legovic M, et al. The reliability of chronological age determination by means of mandibular third molar development in subjects in Croatia. J. Forensic Sci. 2010;55:14–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01238.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Dhanjal KS, Bhardwaj MK, Liversidge HM. Reproducibility of radiographic stage assessment of third molars. Forensic Sci. Int. 2006;159(Suppl 1):S74–77. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.02.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Haglund M, Mornstad H. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the fully formed wisdom tooth as a radiological marker of adulthood. Int. J. Legal Med. 2019;133:231–239. doi: 10.1007/s00414-018-1842-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Rolseth V, et al. Demirjian’s Development Stages on Wisdom Teeth for Estimation of Chronological Age: A Systematic Review. The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH); 2017. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Soares CBRB, et al. Evaluation of third molar development in the estimation of chronological age. Forensic Sci. Int. 2015;254:13–17. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.06.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ginzelova K, Dostalova T, Eliasova H, Bruna R, Vinsu A. Comparison of dental and chronological age based on CBCT-generated panoramic images and reconstructed 3D images. Anthropologischer Anzeiger Bericht uber die biologisch-anthropologische Literatur. 2019;76:49–56. doi: 10.1127/anthranz/2019/0784. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Lee SH, Lee JY, Park HK, Kim YK. Development of third molars in Korean juveniles and adolescents. Forensic Sci. Int. 2009;188:107–111. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.03.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Demirjian A, Goldstein H. New systems for dental maturity based on seven and four teeth. Ann. Hum. Biol. 1976;3:411–421. doi: 10.1080/03014467600001671. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ritz-Timme S, et al. Age estimation: The state of the art in relation to the specific demands of forensic practise. Int. J. Legal Med. 2000;113:129–136. doi: 10.1007/s004140050283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.de Toledo Telles-Araújo G, et al. CBCT does not reduce neurosensory disturbances after third molar removal compared to panoramic radiography: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Oral Invest. 2020;24:1137–1149. doi: 10.1007/s00784-020-03231-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Mohanty I, Panda S, Dalai RP, Mohanty N. Predictive accuracy of Demirjian's, Modified Demirjian's and India specific dental age estimation methods in Odisha (Eastern Indian) population. J. Forensic Odontostomatol. 2019;37:32–39. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rath H, Rath R, Mahapatra S, Debta T. Assessment of Demirjian's 8-teeth technique of age estimation and Indian-specific formulas in an East Indian population: A cross-sectional study. J. Forensic Dent. Sci. 2017;9:45–45. doi: 10.4103/jfo.jfds_84_15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Li D, et al. External root resorption in maxillary and mandibular second molars associated with impacted third molars: A cone-beam computed tomographic study. Clin. Oral Invest. 2019;23:4195–4203. doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-02859-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kumar VJ, Gopal KS. Reliability of age estimation using Demirjian's 8 teeth method and India specific formula. J. Forensic Dent. Sci. 2011;3:19–22. doi: 10.4103/0975-1475.85289. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Hegde S, Patodia A, Dixit U. The applicability of the original and revised Demirjian standards to age estimations of 5–15 year old Indian children. J. Forensic Odontostomatol. 2018;36:1–13. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Leurs IH, Wattel E, Aartman IH, Etty E, Prahl-Andersen B. Dental age in Dutch children. Eur. J. Orthod. 2005;27:309–314. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cji010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Legović M, et al. The reliability of chronological age determination by means of mandibular third molar development in subjects in Croatia. J. Forensic Sci. 2010;55:14–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01238.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Jung Y-H, Cho B-H. Radiographic evaluation of third molar development in 6- to 24-year-olds. Imaging Sci. Dent. 2014;44:185–191. doi: 10.5624/isd.2014.44.3.185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Melo M, Ata-Ali J. Accuracy of the estimation of dental age in comparison with chronological age in a Spanish sample of 2641 living subjects using the Demirjian and Nolla methods. Forensic Sci. Int. 2017;270:276.e271–276.e277. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Lewis JM, Senn DR. Dental age estimation utilizing third molar development: A review of principles, methods, and population studies used in the United States. Forensic Sci. Int. 2010;201:79–83. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.04.042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Bassed RB, Briggs C, Drummer OH. Age estimation and the developing third molar tooth: An analysis of an Australian population using computed tomography. J. Forensic Sci. 2011;56:1185–1191. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01769.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Haglund M, Mörnstad H. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the fully formed wisdom tooth as a radiological marker of adulthood. Int. J. Legal Med. 2019;133:231–239. doi: 10.1007/s00414-018-1842-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Cole TJ. The evidential value of developmental age imaging for assessing age of majority. Ann. Hum. Biol. 2015;42:379–388. doi: 10.3109/03014460.2015.1031826. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES