目的:本研究旨在评估Cameriere欧洲配方的准确性和精密度,Demirjian,Haavikko,和Willems方法,用于估计克罗地亚永久牙列儿童样本中的牙齿年龄。
方法:该研究包括1576张全景X射线照片的样本;84个OPG的子样本,所有前七颗下颌牙齿都成熟了,被排除在研究之外。评估了1492名(704名男性和788名女性)的最终样本,年龄在6.0至13.9岁之间。分析了下颌骨左侧的七个下颌牙齿,牙齿年龄(DA)由Cameriere欧洲公式确定,1976年的Demirjian方法,Haavikko,和Willems方法,并与实际年龄(CA)进行比较。此外,平均年龄差异(DA-CA),牙齿年龄和实际年龄之间的平均绝对误差(MAE),在实际年龄±0.25至±2年内的牙科年龄的个人百分比,并计算了观察者内部和观察者之间的统计数据。
结果:与实际年龄相比,CameriereEuropean公式估计了最佳牙齿年龄;男女平均低估为-0.4年,哈维科被低估了-0.17年,而Demirjian和Willems高估了1.02年和0.48年,分别。在11岁和12岁的女性中,Demirjian方法的差异最大。MAE是0.50年,1.01年,0.61年,男性为0.78岁,男性为0.51岁,1.18年,0.61年,对于Cameriere欧洲配方,女性为0.70岁,Haavikko,Willems,和Demirjian方法,分别。此外,Cameriere欧洲公式显示,在CA的±0.5年差异内,DA的个人比例最高,男性为61.5%,女性为59.6%。此外,Cameriere方法显示出最佳的观察者内部和观察者之间的协议。
结论:尽管Demirjian方法以前在克罗地亚儿童中用于合法,medical,和临床目的,Cameriere欧洲配方,Haavikko,和Willems在测试样品中更准确。根据我们的发现,CameriereEuropean公式在Haavikko之后的克罗地亚儿童的牙科年龄评估中显示出最佳的准确性和精确度,我们推荐它作为法医和临床分析的首选方法。
OBJECTIVE: 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.
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.