Dental and Skeletal Maturity- A Biological Indicator of Chronologic Age

Rai, Vivek; Saha, Sonali; Yadav, Gunjan; Tripathi, Arvind; Grover, Kavita

doi:10.7860/jcdr/2014/10079.4862

Cited by 23 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In common with the previous example the authors demonstrate a remarkable lack of expertise in the methods they use to estimate skeletal maturation. Rai et al (2014) did not appear to appreciate the differences in approach between an Atlas method (e.g. Greulich-Pyle) and a bone-specific scoring method (e.g.…”

Section: Determining Chronological Agementioning

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Can maturity indicators be used to estimate chronological age in children?

Cameron¹

2015

Annals of Human Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maturity indicators are not related to the passage of chronological time, but to the progression of the individual from an immature to a mature state. They are discrete events in a continuous process or a series of processes (e.g. skeletal, sexual, dental, etc.) that highlight uneven maturation within the individual, the independence of maturational processes, sexual dimorphism and the relationship of maturity to size. The use of a timescale of development causes considerable problems in translating biological maturity into a developmental scale. One "year" of maturational time does not equate to 1 year of chronological time and, thus, the passage of time determined by developmental rather than temporal landmarks is both variable and inconsistent. Chronological age determination was not the aim of maturational assessment and, thus, its widespread use as an age determinant poses considerable interpretive challenges.

show abstract

Section: Determining Chronological Agementioning

confidence: 85%

“…Rai et al (2014) compared the usefulness of dental and skeletal maturity estimates to indicate chronological age. Their sample was composed of 150 children aged 5-15 years on whom dental maturity had been determined by the methods of Schour and Massler (1941a,b) and Demirjian et al (1973).…”

Section: Determining Chronological Agementioning

confidence: 99%

Can maturity indicators be used to estimate chronological age in children?

Cameron¹

2015

Annals of Human Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These findings are in line with the study by Alhadlaq et al who found that the bone age of children from Saudi Arabia aged 9 to 15 tended to be lower than chronological age by 8 months (10). In other Asian populations, a large number of studies have shown that the G&P atlas is not applicable due to the large differences between bone age and chronological age (7,10,(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applicability of two bone age assessment methods to children from Saudi Arabia

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The Greulich & Pyle (G&P) and Tanner & Whitehouse (TW) methods are frequently used to determine bone age. The question to be raised is, "Are these standards applicable to children of different ethnicity to those on which they are based?" Methods: Bone age was assessed using the G&P and TW3 methods, firstly by independent manual rating of 2 observers, followed by a single observer using the BoneXpert software programme. In total, 420 hand trauma radiographs for Saudi Arabians (220 males, 329 left, age range 1 to 18 years) performed in the period January 2012-September 2016 were assessed. Paired sample t test was used to compare the difference between mean bone age (BA) and mean chronological age (CA) and to compare the difference between manual and BoneXpert ratings. Statistical analysis was undertaken using SPSS v.25. Findings: We found a statistically significant difference between BA and CA in males when using G&P (mean difference-0.36 ± 1 years, p <0.01) and TW3 (mean difference-0.22 ±0.9 years, p=0.03) methods but not in females for either G&P (mean difference 0.13 ± 1.2 years) or TW3 (mean difference 0.08 ± 1.1 years). In males, BoneXpert results conformed to the manual ratings for TW3 but not for G&P, for which the mean difference between manual and BoneXpert ratings was-0.27 ±0.5 years (p<0.01). Interpretation: Our results indicate that manual and BoneXpert-derived G&P and TW3 bone age assessment can be applied with no modification to Saudi Arabian females. However, only TW3 BoneXpert-derived BA can be applied without caution to Saudi Arabian males.

show abstract

“…The chronological age, i.e., the period between birth and the individual's age, by itself, is not a sufficient criterion for growth and development analysis. Accordingly, some authors have carried out studies in order to relate chronological age to other biological indices, such as height, weight, and skeletal age, in order to understand the relationship between chronological age and the stage of an individual's physical and mental maturation 1,6,7 .…”

Section: Influence Of Skeletal Maturation On Physical Fitness Of Younmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of skeletal maturation on physical fitness of young people with Down syndrome

Modesto

Oliveira

Seron

et al. 2020

Rev Bras Educ Fís Esporte

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals with Down syndrome (DS) tend to prematurely reach the skeletal maturation period. In addition, young people with this condition have poor physical fitness and few opportunities to practice physical activity when compared to those without disabilities. The aim of this study was to investigate the skeletal maturation of young people with Down syndrome and its influence on the behavior of physical fitness related to health, after aerobic and resistance training programs. Forty people with DS, with an average age of 15.4 (± 2.6) years, were divided into three groups for a 12 weeks intervention program, AT - aerobic training group (3 times/week; 50 minutes/session), RT - resistance training group (twice/week ; 50 minutes/session) and CG - control group, 9 participants. Determination of skeletal age (EA) was performed using the Greulich-Pyle method. Anthropometric variables, muscle strength and peak VO2 were measured pre and post intervention. It was found that skeletal maturation influenced the effects of training, only being significant for body weight and strength in the upright row variables. In addition, the muscle strength of upper and lower limbs increased significantly after 12 weeks of aerobic or resistance training. Then, we can conclude that the effects of physical training on physical fitness of young people with Down syndrome appear to improve as the bone age increases.

show abstract

Dental and Skeletal Maturity- A Biological Indicator of Chronologic Age

Cited by 23 publications

References 14 publications

Can maturity indicators be used to estimate chronological age in children?

Can maturity indicators be used to estimate chronological age in children?

Applicability of two bone age assessment methods to children from Saudi Arabia

Influence of skeletal maturation on physical fitness of young people with Down syndrome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About