The Cameriere, Haavikko, Demirjian, and Willems methods for the assessment of dental age in Croatian children

• Published in: International journal of legal medicine Vol. 136; no. 6; pp. 1685 - 1696
• Main Authors: Brkić, Hrvoje, Galić, Ivan, Vodanović, Marin, Dumančić, Jelena, Mehdi, Fuad, Anić Milošević, Sandra
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.11.2022; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Age; Children & youth; Chronology; Evaluation; Females; Forensic Medicine; Forensic odontology; Males; Medical Law; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Methods; Original Article; Croatia; Forensic dentistry; Haavikko; Age assessment; Dental maturity; Willems; Demirjian and Goldstein; Anthropology; Cameriere European formula
• ISSN: 0937-9827; 1437-1596
• DOI: 10.1007/s00414-022-02891-1

Aim 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. Material and 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.