A Comparison of the Accuracy of Four Age Estimation Methods Based on Panoramic Radiography of Developing Teeth

Abstract

Tooth development is widely used in determining age and state of maturity. Dental age is of high importance in forensic and pediatric dentistry and also orthodontic treatment planning .The aim of this study was to com-pare the accuracy of four radiographic age estimation methods. Orthopantomographic images of 537 healthy children (age: 3.9-14.5 years old) were evaluated. Dental age of the subjects was determined through Demirjian's, Willem's, Cameriere's, and Smith's methods. The mean chronological age of the subjects was 8.93 ± 2.04 years. Overestimations of age were observed following the use of Demirjian's method, Willem's method, and Smith's method. However, Cameriere's method underestimated age by 0.19 ± 0.86 years. While paired t-tests revealed significant differences between the mean chronological age and ages determined by Demirjian's, Willem's, and Cameriere's methods, such a significant difference was absent between chronological age and dental age based on Smith's method. Pearson's correlation analysis suggested linear correlations between chronological age and dental age determined by all four methods.

Headnote

Abstract

Background and aims. Tooth development is widely used in determining age and state of maturity. Dental age is of high importance in forensic and pediatric dentistry and also orthodontic treatment planning .The aim of this study was to com-pare the accuracy of four radiographic age estimation methods.

Materials and methods. Orthopantomographic images of 537 healthy children (age: 3.9-14.5 years old) were evaluated. Dental age of the subjects was determined through Demirjian's, Willem's, Cameriere's, and Smith's methods. Differences and correlations between chronological and dental ages were assessed by paired t-tests and Pearson's correlation analysis, respectively.

Results. The mean chronological age of the subjects was 8.93 ± 2.04 years. Overestimations of age were observed follow-ing the use of Demirjian's method (0.87 ± 1.00 years), Willem's method (0.36 ± 0.87 years), and Smith's method (0.06 ± 0.63 years). However, Cameriere's method underestimated age by 0.19 ± 0.86 years. While paired t-tests revealed signifi-cant differences between the mean chronological age and ages determined by Demirjian's, Willem's, and Cameriere's methods (P < 0.001), such a significant difference was absent between chronological age and dental age based on Smith's method (P = 0.079). Pearson's correlation analysis suggested linear correlations between chronological age and dental age determined by all four methods.

Conclusion. Our findings indicated Smith's method to have the highest accuracy among the four assessed methods. How-ever, all four methods can be used with acceptable accuracy.

Key words: Dental age determination, Forensic dentistry, panoramic radiography.

Introduction

Due to illegal immigrations and the growing in-cidence of natural disasters, age determination has gained increasing importance in legal medicine. Age also plays a critical role in pediatric dentistry, orthodontic treatment planning, and surgeries.1 A person's physiological age is assessed based on his/her somatic maturation, i.e. maturation of func-tional body systems such as bones and teeth.2

Teeth undergo various development stages in the first 25 years of a human's life and demonstrate sec-ondary changes in the later years. On the other hand, they are not highly influenced by nutritional and en-docrine factors. Hence, legal dentistry has turned into a dynamic and active field of medicine during the past two decades.3 Numerous techniques have been suggested to determine age according to dental characteristics. Despite the use of time of tooth erup-tion in age determination, this index is widely af-fected by environmental factors including dental arch space, early extraction of primary teeth, tooth impaction, and tipping. Therefore, a number of ap-proaches to age determination, e.g. evaluation of ra-diographic images,4,5 dental structure,6-8 Gustafson's method,9 Lamendin's method,10,11 and aspartic acid racemization,12,13 use tooth development stages as a more logical factor. Among the many advanced im-aging technologies and radiographic images utilized to estimate age, viz. panoramic, periapical, cepha-lometric, and lateral oblique radiographs, panoramic radiographs are an accessible and inexpensive method to provide an outline of a person's dental system maturity.14

Demirjian's method is an extensively applied tech-nique which utilizes radiographs and estimates age based on development stages of seven leftmandibu-lar permanent teeth.15 Willem's method uses the same seven teeth and the eight development stages defined by Demirjian separately for boys and girls and calculates age by considering the set of indices for each tooth.16 On the other hand, Cameriere's method determines chronological age based on the relationship between age and measurement of open apices in tooth roots.17 Smith modified the technique developed by Moorrees et al18 and used 14 develop-ment stages for eight leftmandibular teeth to esti-mate children's age.19 Since few studies have evalu-ated various age determination techniques among Iranian children, the present study compared the ac-curacy of Demirjian's, Cameriere's, Smith's, and Willem's methods in estimating the age of the men-tioned population.

Materials and Methods

This double blind study evaluated panoramic radio-graphs of 577 children (284 boys and 293 girls) in Isfahan, Iran. The radiographs, which had been or-dered by dentists for diagnostic purposes, were taken in one of the oral and maxillofacial radiology centers in the city. Before the radiography, the children's gender and birth date were recorded in a question-naire. A radiologist trained the observer to use the related software and assess the radiographs. The in-clusion criteria were age 3-15 years, absence of sys-temic diseases, dental anomalies, nutritional and en-docrine problems, premature birth, and birth defect, and clear birth date and date of radiography. The exclusion criteria were too much magnification or minification, patient head rotation (unequal tooth size on the two sides), lack of one or more leftman-dibular permanent teeth, and low-quality radio-graphs.

All direct digital panoramic radiographs were ob-tained utilizing a Cranex D system (Soredex, Finland) via a charge-coupled device (CCD) and saved as .JPEG files. Analysis of the images in Romexis Viewer was then performed by a trained observer and under the supervision of an oral and maxillofacial radiologist. In order to measure intra-examiner reproducibility, 50 samples were reexam-ined at a two-week interval and the kappa score was calculated as 0.96.

The children's chronological age (computed by subtracting their birth date from the radiography date) was compared with ages estimated by Demir-jian's, Cameriere's, Smith's, and Willem's methods. Normality of data was assessed with Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Pearson's correlation analysis and paired t-tests were used to analyze the data in SPSS for Windows 10.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

From the 577 children in the initial sample, one boy and 17 other children (seven boys and 10 girls) were excluded due to the congenital absence of mandibu-lar lateral incisor and mandibular second premolar, respectively. Moreover, 12 boys and 10 girls were excluded because of various reasons such as low-quality images or extraction of a permanent tooth. Finally, 537 children and adolescents (264 boys and 273 girls) were studied.

Since Kolmogorov-Smirnov test results were not significant at P ≤ 0.05, scores of variables had nor-mal distribution. The mean chronological ages of the whole sample, the girls, and the boys were 8.93, 8.95, and 8.90 years, respectively. Comparisons be-tween the mean ages calculated by the four studied methods and the mean chronological age showed that while Demirjian's, Willem's, and Smith's meth-ods overestimated the children's age, Cameriere's method underestimated all values (Table 1).

Paired t-test showed the mean chronological age to have significant differences with the mean ages cal-culated through Demirjian's, Willem's, and Cameri-ere's methods (P < 0.001 for all). However, the dif- ference between the mean chronological age and the mean age determined by Smith's method was not significant (P = 0.079). In addition, the mean ages suggested by the four studied methods were not sig-nificantly different (Table 2). When stratified by gender, paired t-test results revealed that only the difference between the girls' mean chronological age and the mean age estimated by Smith's method was not significant (P = 0.900)

According to Pearson's correlation analysis, all of the four employed methods had significant positive linear correlations with each other and with chrono-logical age (P < 0.001) (Table 3). Furthermore, both Demirjian's and Willem's methods had the greatest accuracy in determining the age of 6-11-year-old girls and boys. The estimations based on Cameri-ere's method were most accurate in 6-12-year-old boys and 6-11-year-old girls. Finally, Smith's method had the highest accuracy in calculating the age of 6-12-year-old children. On the other hand, while the underestimations using Cameriere's method were greater in boys than in girls, the oppo-site was true about the overestimations made by all of the other three methods (Table 3).

Discussion

Age determination is a major concern in medical and legal procedures. The present study compared the accuracy of four age determination methods (Demir-jian's, Cameriere's, Smith's, and Willem's methods) based on panoramic radiographs of permanent teeth. Correlation tests revealed ages estimated by all the four methods to have positive linear correlations with chronological age. On the other hand, since paired t-test suggested significant differences be-tween chronological age and those calculated by Demirjian's, Cameriere's, and Willem's methods, the Smith's method had the greatest accuracy among all evaluated techniques. The second-fourth accuracy levels belonged to Cameriere's, Willem's, Demir-jian's methods, respectively.

Similar to the majority of previous research20,23-35, we found Demirjian's method to overestimate age by a mean value of 0.87 years. According to Demirjian et al., who developed the method using a sample of French-Canadian children, the technique is not nec-essarily accurate and valid for children of other eth-nicities and may thus require modifications.20 There-fore, numerous researchers have assessed the accu-racy of Demirjian's method in estimating the age of subjects from different races. Grover et al. reported the method to overestimate girls' and boys' age by 0.56 and 0.66 years, respectively.20 Ogodescu et al. applied the method on a sample of Rumanian chil-dren and found it to overestimate girls' age by 0.36 years and underestimate boys' by 0.04 years.21 Meanwhile, Demirjian's method has been proved to be completely inefficient in determining the age of 4-16-year-old Nigerian children and adolescents.22 Similar research in the Netherlands, England, and China have also suggested the inefficiency of the method in estimating children's age.23-26 Generally, most studies have indicated Demirjian's method to overestimate age by 0.02-3.06 years.23-35 However, Ghadim et al. reported the method to underestimate the age of 3-14-year-old Kuwaiti children by 0.69 years.36 Likewise, Sheikhi et al. found Demirjian's method to underestimate the age of 5-16-year-old children and adolescents from Babol (Iran) by 0.04 years.37 Ethnic, environmental, nutritional, and so-cioeconomic differences along with differences in sample size and applied statistical tests seem to be responsible for such a wide range of results.14

Most Iranian studies in this field have also focused on the accuracy of Demirjian's method. For instance, Sheikhi et al. found the method to overestimate the age of 5-16-year-old subjects from Rasht by 0.02 years.38 The difference between their findings and ours seems to be due to the differences in ethnicity, sample size, and the applied methods. On the other hand, many studies have reported results similar to ours. In Rafsanjan, Bagherian et al. estimated the age of 3.5-13.5-year-old children and reported the values to be 0.21 and 0.15 years higher than chronological age in girls and boys, respectively.29 In a study on 6-13-year-old children in Mashhad, Bagherpour et al. stated that despite the positive correlation between chronological age and the value determined by Demirjian's method, the values were significantly different. They reported the ages of girls and boys to have been overestimated by 0.25 and 0.34 years, re-spectively.28 Likewise, Javadinejad et al. suggested the method to overestimate girls' and boys' age by 0.47 and 0.94 years, respectively.27

In the present study, Willem's method overesti-mated children's age by 0.36 years (0.30 years in girls and 0.42 years in boys). Consistent results have also been indicated by previous research. Galic et al. found Willem's method to overestimate girls' and boys' age by 0.24 and 0.42 years, respectively.39 Grover et al. reported the method to estimate girls' and boys' age 0.24 and 0.36 years higher than their chronological age, respectively.20 According to Nik-Hussein et al., ages determined by Willem's method were overestimated by 0.10 and 0.20 years in girls and boys, respectively.40 Similarly, Balwant et al. revealed the method to overestimate age by about 0.24 years.41 In a study on 3-18-year-old children and adolescents in Isfahan (Iran), Javadinejad et al. reported that girls' and boys' ages determined by Willem's method were respectively 0.06 and 0.22 years higher than their chronological age.27 These findings suggest that the difference between chrono-logical age and the values determined by Willem's method are less ethnicity-dependent (compared to Demirjian's method) and the method can be em-ployed with acceptable accuracy in most cases.

Various studies have been performed on the accu-racy of Cameriere's method. Cameriere et al. tested their formula on a large sample of European children and found it to underestimate age by 0.11 years.42 The method also underestimated age by 0.18 years (0.11 years in girls and 0.27 years in boys) in the current study and the second highest accuracy after Smith's method. De Luca et al. concluded that Cameriere's method could accurately estimate the age of Mexican children.43Likewise, Javadinejad et al. found the method to be highly accurate in deter-mining the age of 5-15-year-old children in Isfahan (Iran).44 In contrast, Galic et al. reported Cameriere's method to overestimate age by 0.09 years in boys and 0.02 years in girls.39 In a study to assess the ac-curacy of Cameriere's method among Brazilian chil-dren, Fernandes et al. found the method to overesti-mate age in 5-10-year-olds and to underestimate age in 5-11-year-olds.45 Balwant et al. applied Cameri-ere's method to determine the age of 273 children in Haryana (India). Since the method overestimated age by 0.60 years in girls and 0.70 years in boys, the au-thors concluded that the formula proposed by Cameriere et al. lacked adequate accuracy in age de-termination among Indian children. They thus high-lighted the need for a new formula to estimate age in this ethnic group.41 The relative inconsistency be-tween the findings of these studies and ours can be justified by differences in sample size, ethnicity, en-vironmental characteristics, and applied statistical methods.

In the current research, Smith's method, the modi-fied version of the method developed by Moorrees, Fanning, and Hunt,18 overestimated children's age by 0.06 years (0.12 years in boys and < 0.01 years in girls). Unfortunately, few studies have examined the accuracy of this method. In Colombia, Corral et al. compared six age determination techniques based on panoramic radiographs and found those suggested by Moorrees et al. and Smith to have the least tendency to overestimate age. Similar to our finding, they in-dicated these two methods as the most accurate among the six methods.46 In a study to compare the accuracy of Demirjian's method and the technique developed by Moorrees et al. in estimating the age of 3-16-year-old South African subjects, Philips et al. reported the first method to most probably overesti-mate age while the latter tended to underestimate age. However, in contrast to our findings, they re-ported Demirjian's method to have higher accu-racy.47 Such an inconsistency could have been caused by the use of Smith's method (instead of Moorrees et al.'s) in our study, the considerable eth-nic difference between Iranian and African children, and wider age range in Philips et al.'s study. Mean-while, according to our findings, Smith's method was highly accurate in determining age in both gen-ders (especially girls). Therefore, considering its simple application, it can be employed in orthodontic treatment planning or legal medicine to estimate children and adolescents' age. Nevertheless, further research to evaluate the accuracy and validity of this method is still warranted.

Limited studies have compared various age deter-mination methods. In London, Liversidge et al. con-ducted a large study to compare 15 age determina-tion methods based on radiographs of developing teeth and reported Willem's method to have the highest accuracy.24 In Egypt, El-Bakary et al. com-pared Willem's and Cameriere's methods and found that although the values determined by both methods had significant correlations with chronological age, Willem's method had greater accuracy.48 Conversely (and probably due to ethnic differences), our study revealed Cameriere's method to have higher accu-racy. In a study on Bosnian-Herzegovian children, Galic et al. compared Haavikko's, Willem's, and Cameriere's methods and reported them in terms of accuracy Cameriere's and Willem's methods to be the most and least accurate, respectively.39 We also found Cameriere's method to have higher accuracy than Willem's method. Similarly, other studies to compare Cameriere's and Willem's methods indi-cated the latter to show higher accuracy.20,41,49

The current study demonstrated Demirjian's method to have the highest accuracy in 6-10-year-olds of both genders. In Rumania, Ogodescu et al. reported the highest accuracy of Demirjian's method in 5.5-13-year-old boys and 6.5-11.5-year-old girls. They also found the method to underestimate boys' age and overestimate girls' age.21 However, many studies have reported contrasting results23-35 which might be attributed to differences in ethnicity, sam-ple size, and statistical analyses. Hegde et al. sug-gested Demirjian's method to show the highest accu-racy in 6-12-year-old boys and girls.50 Similar to our findings, Corral et al. suggested Demirjian's and Smith's methods to have the highest accuracy among 5.5-12 and 6-12 year-old children, respectively.46 According to Liversidge et al., most radiographic age determination methods in 3-15-year-old children tend to overestimate younger ages and underestimate older ages.50

Since the studied methods had distinct tables and indices for the two genders, their accuracy needs to be evaluated separately in each gender. Based on our findings, all four methods had lower error rates in girls than in boys. However, this difference was not statistically significant. Besides, only girls' age de-termined by Smith's method did not have a signifi-cant difference with their chronological age. Other studies have also mentioned lower error rate of ra-diographic age determination methods in girls, but have failed to establish significant differences be-tween the rates in two genders.22,23,40,43,45

Conclusion

The present research showed that although Smith's method had the highest accuracy in estimating the age of the studied sample, Cameriere's, Willem's, and Demirjian's methods can still determine Iranian children and adolescents' age with acceptable accu-racy.

References

References

1. Berndt DC, Despotovic T, Mund MT, Filippi A. The role of the dentist in modern forensic age determination. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 2008;118:1073-88.

2. Javadinejad S, Ghodousi A, Baharloui M. Evaluating the Accuracy of Age Estimation Based on Demirjian's Method Using Orthopantomographs. Scientific Journal of Legal Medicine 2009;14:137-42. [In Persian].

3. Demirjian A, Goldstein H, Tanner JM. A new system of den-tal age assessment. Hum Biol 1973;45:211-27.

4. Koshy S, Tandon S. Dental age assessment: the applicability of Demirjian's method in south Indian children. Forensic Sci Int 1998;94:73-85. doi: 10.1016/s0379-0738(98)00034-6

5. Panchbhai AS. Dental radiographic indicators, a key to age estimation. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011;40:199-212. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/19478385

6. Wittwer-Backofen U. Age estimation using tooth cementum annulation. Methods Mol Biol 2012;915:129-43. doi: 10.1007/978-1-61779-977-8_8

7. de Oliveira FT, Capelozza AL, Lauris JR, de Bullen IR. Min-eralization of mandibular third molars can estimate chrono-logical age-Brazilian indices. Forensic Sci Int 2011;219:147-50. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.12.013

8. Babshet M, Acharya AB, Naikmasur VG. Age estimation from pulp/tooth area ratio (PTR) in an Indian sample: a pre-liminary comparison of three mandibular teeth used alone and in combination. J Forensic Leg Med 2011;18:350-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2011.07.003

9. Kashyat VK, Kuteswava Rao NR. A modified Gustafson method of age estimation from teeth. Forensic Sci Int 1990;47:237-47. doi: 10.1016/0379-0738(90)90293-8

10. Lamendin H,Baccino E,Humbert JF. A simple technique for age estimation in adult coroses: the two criteria dental method. J Forensic Sci 1992;37:1373-79.

11. González-Colmenares G, Botella-López MC, Moreno-Rueda G, Fernández-Cardenete JR. Age estimation by a dental method: a comparison of Lamendin's and Prince & Ubelaker's technique. J Forensic Sci 2007;52:1156-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00508.x

12. Ohtani S. Estimation of age from dentin by utilizing the ra-ceminization of aspartic acid. Forensic Sci Int 1995;75:181-7. doi: 10.1016/0379-0738(95)01782-8

13. Dobberstein RC, Huppertz J, von Wurmb-Schwark N, Ritz-Timme S. Degradation of biomolecules in artificially and naturally aged teeth: implications for age estimation based on aspartic acid racemization and DNA analysis. Forensic Sci Int 2008;179:181-91. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2008.05.017

14. Butti AC, Clivio A, Ferraroni M, Spada E, Testa A, Salvato A. Häävikko's method to assess dental age in Italian children. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:150-5. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjn081

15. Kirzioglu Z, Ceyhan D. Accuracy of different dental age estimation methods on Turkish children. Forensic Sci Int 2012;10;216:61-7. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.08.018

16. Willems G, Van Olmen A, Spiessens B, Carels C. Dental age estimation in Belgian children: Demirjian's technique revis-ited. J Forensic Sci 2001;46:893-5.

17. Cameriere R, Ferrante L, Cingolani M. Age estimation in children by measurement of open apices in teeth. Int J Legal Med 2006;120:49-52. doi: 10.1007/s00414-005-0047-9

18. Moorrees CF, Fanning EA, Hunt EE Jr. Age variation of formation stages for ten permanent teeth. J Dent Res 1963;42:1490-502. doi: 10.1177/00220345630420062701

19. Smith BH. Standards of human tooth formation and dental age assesment. In: Advances in Dental Anthropology. St. Louis: Wiley-Liss; 1991. p. 143-68.

20. Grover S, Marya CM, Avinash J, Pruthi N. Estimation of dental age and its comparison with chronological age: accu-racy of two radiographic methods. Med Sci Law 2012;52:32-5. doi: 10.1258/msl.2011.011021

21. Ogodescu A, Bratu E, Tudor A, Ogodescu Al. Estimation of child's biological age based on tooth development. Rom J Leg Med 2011;19:115-24. doi: 10.4323/rjlm.2011.115

22. Ifesanya JU, Adeyemi AT. Accuracy of age estimation using Demirjian method among Nigerian children. Afr J Med Med Sci 2012;41:297-300.

23. Rózylo-Kalinowska I, Kiworkowa-Raczkowska E, Kali-nowski P. Dental age in Central Poland. Forensic Sci Int 2008;174:207-16. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2007.04.219

24. Liversidge HM, Speechly T, Hector MP. Dental maturation in British children: are Demirjian's standards applicable? Int J Paediatr Dent 1999;9:263-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263x.1999.00144.x

25. Davis PJ, Hägg U. The accuracy and precision of the "Demir-jian system" when used for age determination in Chinese children. Swed Dent J 1994;18:113-6.

26. Tao J, Wang Y, Liu RJ, Xu X, Li XP. Accuracy of age esti-mation from orthopantomograph using Demirjian's method. Fa Yi Xue Za Zhi 2007;23:258-60.

27. Javadinejad S, Ghafari R, Memar Ardestani M. Comparing the accuracy of two age determination methods based on the radiography of developing teeth in children. Scientific Jour-nal of Legal Medicine 2012:17:141-8. [In Persian]

28. Bagherpour A, Imanimoghaddam M, Bagherpour MR, Einolghozati M. Dental age assessment among Iranian chil-dren aged 6-13 years using the Demirjian method. Forensic Sci Int 2010;15;197:121. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.12.051

29. Bagherian A, Sadeghi M. Assessment of dental maturity of children aged 3.5 to 13.5 years using the Demirjian method in an Iranian population. J Oral Sci 2011;53:37-42. doi: 10.2334/josnusd.53.37

30. Baghdadi ZD, Pani SC. Accuracy of population-specific Demirjian curves in the estimation of dental age of Saudi children. Int J Paediatr Dent 2012;22:125-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263x.2011.01179.x

31. Nur B, Kusgoz A, Bayram M, Celikoglu M, Nur M, Kayip-maz S, et al. Validity of demirjian and nolla methods for den-tal age estimation for Northeastern Turkish children aged 5-16 years old. Med Oral Pathol Oral Cir Bucal 2012;17:e871-7. doi: 10.4317/medoral.18034

32. Celikoglu M, Cantekin K, Ceylan I. Dental age assessment: the applicability of Demirjian method in eastern Turkish chil-dren. J Forensic Sci 2011;56:S220-2. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01598.x

33. Nykänen R, Espeland L, Kvaal SI, Krogstad O. Validity of the Demirjian method for dental age estimation when applied to Norwegian children. Acta Odontol Scand 1998;56:238-44. doi: 10.1080/00016359850142862

34. Al-Emran S. Dental age assessment of 8.5 to 17 Year-old Saudi children using Demirjian's method. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008;9:64-71.

35. Lee SS, Kim D, Lee S, Lee UY, Seo JS, Ahn YW, et al. Va-lidity of Demirjian's and modified Demirjian's methods in age estimation for Korean juveniles and adolescents. Forensic Sci Int 2011;211:41-6. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.04.011

36. Qudeimat MA, Behbehani F. Dental age assessment for Ku-waiti children using Demirjian's method. Ann Hum Biol 2009;36:695-704. doi: 10.3109/03014460902988702

37. Sheikhi M, Ghorbanzadeh S, Madani M. Accuracy of Demir-jian's method in estimating the chronological age of 5-17-year-olds in Babol, Iran. Journal of Isfahan Dental School 2011;7:487-82. [In Persian].

38. Sheikhi M, Dakhilalian M, Jamshidi M, Noori Sh, Babayi M. Age Estimation with Demirjian's Method in the 5-16-Year-Old Population of Rasht, Iran. The Journal of Shahid Sa-doughi University of Medical Sciences 2013;21:85-93. [In Persian].

39. Galic I, Vodanovic M, Cameriere R, Nakas E, Galic E, Selimovic E, et al. Accuracy of Cameriere, Haavikko, and Willems radiographic methods on age estimation on Bosnian-Herzegovian children age groups 6-13. Int J Legal Med 2011;125:315-21. doi: 10.1007/s00414-010-0515-8

40. Nik-Hussein NN, Kee KM, Gan P. Validity of Demirjian and Willems methods for dental age estimation for Malaysian children aged 5-15 years old. Forensic Sci Int 2011;30:204-8. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.08.020

41. Rai B, Cameriere R, Ferrante L. Accuracy of Cameriere et al regression equation inHaryana population. Rom J Leg Med 2009;17:147-50. doi: 10.4323/rjlm.2009.147

42. Cameriere R, De Angelis D, Ferrante L, Scarpino F, Cingolani M. Age estimation in children by measurement of open apices in teeth: a European formula. Int J Legal Med 2007;121:449-53. doi: 10.1007/s00414-007-0179-1

43. De Luca S, De Giorgio S, Butti AC, Biagi R, Cingolani M, Cameriere R. Age estimation in children by measurement of open apices in tooth roots: study of a Mexican sample. Fo-rensic Sci Int 2012;221:155.e1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.04.026

44. Javadinejad S, Mehdizadeh M, Torabi R. Accuracy of age determination with Cameriere's method. Journal of Isfahan Dental School 2012;8:314-21. [In Perisan]

45. Fernandes MM, Tinoco RL, de Braganca DP, de Lima SH, Francesquini Junior L. Age estimation by measurements of developing teeth: accuracy of Cameriere's method on a Bra-zilian sample. Daruge Junior EJ Forensic Sci 2011;56:1616-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01860.x

46. Corral C, Garcia F, Garcia AJ, Leon P, Hererra A, Martinez C, et al. Chronological versus dental age in subjects from 5 to 19 years: a comparative study with forensic implications. Colomb Med 2010;41:215-23.

47. Phillips VM, van W, Kotze TJ. Dental age related tables for children of various ethnic groups in South Africa. J Forensic Odontostomatol 2009;27:20-8.

48. El-Bakary AA, Hammad SM, Mohammed F. Dental age es-timation in Egyptian children, comparison between two methods. J Forensic Leg Med 2010;17:363-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2010.05.008

49. Mani SA, Naing L, John J, Samsudin AR. Comparison of two methods of dental age estimation in 7-15-year-old Malays. Int J Paediatr Dent 2008;18:380-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263x.2007.00890.x

50. Hegde RJ, Sood PB. Dental maturity as an indicator of chronological age: radiographic evaluation of dental age in 6 to 13 years children of Belgaum using Demirjian methods. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2002;20:132-8.

51. Liversidge HM, Smith BH, Maber M. Bias and accuracy of ageestimation using developing teeth in 946 children. Am J Phys Anthropol 2010;143:545-54. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.21349