Age estimation based on Willems method versus country specific model in Saudi Arabia children and adolescents

A Comparative Study of the Assessment of the Accuracy of Willems' and Demirjian's Methods in Dental Age Estimation of the Saudi Arabian Population

BACKGROUND

The notion that "age is just a number" is sometimes expressed colloquially; however, within the domains of medicine and dentistry, age is not only a numerical value. Rather, it has significant importance in several facets of diagnosis and treatment planning. Demonstrating one's identity is necessary not only in the aftermath of natural calamities or mishaps but also in the context of forensic examination of living persons. Age assessment is a very important tool in forensic odontology and plays a vital role in various fields, including medico-legal matters. The primary focus of the current investigation is to assess the precision and correctness of the data and reliability of Demirjian's method (DM) and Willems' method (WM) for age estimation (AE) among the population of Saudi Arabia.

METHODOLOGY

This research was conducted on 300 children from Saudi Arabia, aged seven to 13 years, including both males and females. The assessment of orthopantomography images involved the utilization of both Demirjian's and Willems' methodologies for ascertaining dental age. This determined dental age was then meticulously juxtaposed with the chronological age (CA) of every participant. The data collected underwent a comprehensive statistical analysis, which encompassed the application of the paired t-test.

RESULTS

By using both methodologies, it was discovered that the estimated age (EA) exhibited higher values in both men and females compared to the CA. Both Willems' and Demirjian's approaches yielded significantly different results in terms of statistical significance (p = 0.000 and p = 0.000, respectively), as shown by the comparison.

CONCLUSION

When comparing Willems' technique to Demirjian's method, it was found that the population under research showed somewhat greater accuracy levels for AE. However, it is important to note that the disparity between these two approaches was relatively small. Consequently, it is imperative to emphasize the necessity for additional research involving a larger sample size to establish the validation of a more region-specific AE method tailored specifically for the Saudi Arabian population.

The Cameriere, Haavikko, Demirjian, and Willems methods for the assessment of dental age in Croatian children

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and precision of the Cameriere European formula, Demirjian, Haavikko, and Willems methods for estimating dental age in a sample of children with permanent dentition in Croatia.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study consisted of a sample of 1576 panoramic radiographs; a sub-sample of 84 OPGs, in which all first seven mandibular teeth were maturated, was excluded from the study. A final sample of 1492 (704 males and 788 females) aged 6.0 to 13.9 years was evaluated. Seven mandibular teeth from the left side of the mandible were analyzed, and dental age (DA) was determined by the Cameriere European formula, Demirjian method from 1976, Haavikko, and Willems methods and compared to chronological age (CA). In addition, the mean age difference (DA-CA), the mean absolute error (MAE) between dental and chronological age, the percentage of the individuals of dental age within ± 0.25 to ± 2 years of chronological age, and intra-observer and inter-observer statistics were calculated.

RESULTS

The Cameriere European formula estimated the best dental age compared to the chronological age; the mean underestimation was - 0.4 years for both sexes, Haavikko underestimated by - 0.17 years, while Demirjian and Willems overestimated by 1.02 years and 0.48 years, respectively. The most significant difference showed the Demirjian method in 11-year-old and 12-year-old females. The MAE were 0.50 years, 1.01 years, 0.61 years, and 0.78 years in males and 0.51 years, 1.18 years, 0.61 years, and 0.70 years in females for the Cameriere European formula, Haavikko, Willems, and Demirjian methods, respectively. Furthermore, the Cameriere European formula showed the highest proportions of individuals with DA within ± 0.5 year difference of the CA, 61.5% in males and 59.6% in females. In addition, the Cameriere method showed the best intra-observer and inter-observer agreements.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the Demirjian method was used previously in Croatian children for legal, medical, and clinical purposes, the Cameriere European formula, Haavikko, and Willems were more accurate in the tested sample. According to our findings, the Cameriere European formula showed the best accuracy and precision in dental age assessment in Croatian children following Haavikko, and we recommend it as the method of the first choice in forensic and clinical analyses.