Accuracy of dental age estimation charts: Schour and Massler, Ubelaker and the London Atlas

Abstract

Dental age estimation charts are frequently used to assess maturity and estimate age. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of estimating age of three dental development charts (Schour and Massler, Ubelaker, and the London Atlas). The test sample was skeletal remains and dental radiographs of known-age individuals (N = 1,506, prenatal to 23.94 years). Dental age was estimated using charts of Schour and Massler, Ubelaker, and The London Atlas. Dental and chronological ages were compared using a paired t-test for the three methods. The absolute mean difference between dental and chronological age was calculated. Results show that all three methods under-estimated age but the London Atlas performed better than Schour and Massler and Ubelaker in all measures. The mean difference for Schour and Massler and Ubelaker was -0.76 and -0.80 years (SD 1.27 year, N = 1,227) respectively and for the London Atlas was -0.10 year (SD 0.97 year, N = 1,429). Further analysis by age category showed similar accuracy for all three methods for individuals younger than 1 year. For ages 1-18, the mean difference between dental and chronological ages was significant (P < 0.05) for Schour and Massler and Ubelaker and not significant (P > 0.05) for the London Atlas for most age categories. These findings show that the London Atlas performs better than Schour and Massler and Ubelaker and represents a substantial improvement in accuracy of dental age estimation from developing teeth.

Accuracy of Dental Age in Nonadults: A Comparison of Two Methods for Age Estimation Using Radiographs of Developing Teeth

“…In this study DA was overestimated with MEs between 0.03 and 0.99 for age groups between 6 and 12 years. These results are similar to previous studies that highlight a trend for greater accuracy for younger ages and an increasing amount of scatter past the age of 12 years (AlQahtani et al 2014, Smith 2005.…”

“…In regards to repeatability, there were no significant intra and inter-observer differences, indicating that this method is reliable. Preliminary research comparing the London Atlas to older dental charts suggests that the London Atlas performs significantly better (AlQahtani et al 2014). The results from this study support this conclusion with the mean difference being only slightly higher (0.17 years) than the results presented AlQahtani et al (2014) for the London Atlas (0.10 year) but was still more accurate than the Schour and Massler (-0.76 year) and Ubelaker (-0.80 year) charts.…”

“…Preliminary research comparing the London Atlas to older dental charts suggests that the London Atlas performs significantly better (AlQahtani et al 2014). The results from this study support this conclusion with the mean difference being only slightly higher (0.17 years) than the results presented AlQahtani et al (2014) for the London Atlas (0.10 year) but was still more accurate than the Schour and Massler (-0.76 year) and Ubelaker (-0.80 year) charts. The percentage of individuals assigned to the correct age category was the was also similar to the results presented in AlQahtani et al (2014).…”

“…Tooth and eruption stages are verbally and pictorially described and illustrate changes in enamel, dentin and pulp. Current research has also suggested that this method performs better than other commonly used dental atlases (AlQahtani et al 2014).…”

“…As a result, forensic techniques require a higher level of accuracy than techniques utilized in bioarcheological studies (estimates with ranges that will correctly classify an individual at least 95% of the time). Furthermore, the reporting of error statistics in forensic science applications is necessary concerning legal admissibility as per the Daubert Guidelines With these considerations in mind, the present study assesses the accuracy two methods for age estimation in non-adults using dental radiographs -Cameriere's et al These methods are of particular interest because previous research indicates that these methods may produce more accurate and precise age estimations for individuals than the methods currently used in the field (AlQahtani et al 2014, Cameriere et al 2008, Fernandes et al 2011). …”