Impact of population‐specific dental development on age estimation using dental atlases

Abstract

ObjectivesThe steady development and subsequent eruption of the dentition is particularly useful for the estimation of age in juveniles. There are few studies that examine and test methods on a population‐diverse sample. Our goal is to test the Ubelaker () and London Atlas (2010) dental charts on a sample representing several different population backgrounds to infer if refinement for population‐specific standards should be developed.Materials and methodsThe first and second authors examined panoramic radiographs of 335 individuals from the James K. Economides Orthodontic Collection blind to chronological age, sex, and ancestry and scored using both dental atlases.ResultsThe age of Native Americans and African Americans was generally overestimated, suggesting faster rates of development. European Americans and New Mexico Hispanics, while not always showing the highest success rates, generally were closer to the correct age than other ancestry groups. The overall success rate for Ubelaker () was 80.00% for both observers, while the London Atlas was significantly lower at approximately 21.79–23.28%. Accuracy rates did not differ significantly between ancestry groups, though patterns were evident regarding under‐ or over‐estimation of age.DiscussionThe present study demonstrates that incorrect age estimations were typically still within 1.5 years of the actual age. Ubelaker () had higher rates of success due to broader age ranges. The results suggest that though accuracy rates did not significantly differ, different developmental rates may affect age estimates and population‐specific standards should be considered for known‐ancestry individuals, while aging standards constructed from a diverse sample should be utilized for unknown‐ancestry cases.

Laser ablation strontium isotope analysis of human remains from Harlaa and Sofi, eastern Ethiopia, and the implications for Islamisation and mobility

“…Although the classification of these individuals as non-adults is reliable, the age ranges provided may not reflect their "true" chronological age. This is because population-specific and period-specific dental development criteria for this geographic region, population, and archaeological period do not exist and were therefore not used (Hillson 2005, 211;Adams et al 2018;Smith 2020). Moreover, the exact time and rate at which individual teeth undergo the mineralisation process has been shown to vary both between and within individuals, thereby reducing the effectiveness of tooth formation for estimating the age-at-death for samples originating from an unstudied archaeological population (Montgomery 2010;Hillson 2005;Evans, Chenery, and Fitzpatrick 2006;Akkus et al 2016;Adams et al 2018;Esan, Mothupi, and Schepartz 2018).…”

“…Enamel mineralisation is a complex two-stage process resulting in a degree of time-averaging that varies in duration in different places of the same tooth, and in two different teeth that formed simultaneously in the same individual (Montgomery 2010). Additionally, individual molar elements mineralise at different speeds in different individuals with important differences between males and females (Adams et al 2018;Esan, Mothupi, and Schepartz 2018;White and Folkens 2005;Hillson 2005, 210-214;Demirjiajn and Levesque 1980). This means that the mineralisation period in human teeth can only be stated approximately, which complicates the process of aligning isotopic data measured at high resolution by laser ablation from multiple teeth from the same individual.…”

Efficacy of Initial vs. Delayed Photodynamic Therapy in Combination With Conbercept for Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy

“…Matsuoka et al found high expression of VEGF in RPE cells and vascular endothelial cells in the eyes among patients with PCVs (24). By directly suppressing the VEGF highly expressed among PCV patients, anti-VEGF agents were confirmed to distinctly improve their vision, and decrease the exudation and the thickness of the fovea (25)(26)(27)(28).…”

Pediatric paleoradiology: Applications and best practice protocols for image acquisition and reporting

“…Individuals evaluated ranged in age from fetal to 19 years (for examples of the range, see Adams et al, 2019; Beyer‐Olsen & Risnes, 1994; Brickley et al, 2018; Cowgill, 2007; Gaither, 2012; Geber, 2014; Newman et al, 2019; Newman & Gowland, 2017). Smaller studies (family cemeteries or comingled burials) assessed children of different ages.…”

“…The remaining two studies with 500+ individuals used radiographs to assess findings identified first on macroscopic examination (Brickley et al, 2018;Verlinden & Lewis, 2015). Individuals evaluated ranged in age from fetal to 19 years (for examples of the range, see Adams et al, 2019;Beyer-Olsen & Risnes, 1994;Brickley et al, 2018;Cowgill, 2007;Gaither, 2012;Geber, 2014;Newman et al, 2019;Newman & Gowland, 2017).…”