Applicability of the London Atlas method in the East China population

Validation of London Atlas for forensic age estimation in Koreans by comparing with Lee's and Willems' methods

This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the applicability of the London Atlas for age estimation in the Korean population by comparing with Lee's and Willems' methods. Dental ages of 475 orthopantomographs from Korean individuals aged 4-15 years (mean 10.32 ± 3.31 years) were estimated using the London Atlas, Lee's and Willems' methods. Correlation between dental and chronological age was determined using Pearson's correlation coefficient, and the statistical difference between dental and chronological age was analyzed using a paired t-test. The bias (mean differences), mean absolute error, and root mean square error between dental and chronological age, stratified by age groups and estimation methods, were calculated. Differences in bias and absolute error between sexes were scrutinized using an independent-samples t-test. Age estimates of the three tested methods were combined and compared to those of each individual method. The London Atlas and Willems methods resulted in overestimations, whereas the Lee method led to an underestimation on the entire sample. The overall accuracy was observed in the order of Lee's method, the London Atlas, and Willems' method. The London Atlas demonstrated superior consistency of estimation performance across age groups and no significant differences in estimation performance between sexes. The combination of estimates from the London Atlas and Lee's method resulted in an enhancement in bias and accuracy. We conclude that the London Atlas, due to its bias and accuracy comparable to Lee's and Willems' methods, is applicable for forensic practice in the Korean population.

Performance of the London Atlas, Willems, and a new quick method for dental age estimation in Chinese Uyghur children

BACKGROUND

Numerous dental age estimation methods have been devised and practised for decades. Among these, the London Atlas and Willems methods were two of the most frequently adopted, however dependent on atlantes or tables. A new estimation method less reliant on external measurement could be efficient and economical.

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate the utility and applicability of the dental age estimation methods of London Atlas, Willems, and a new quick method that subtracts the number of developing teeth from the universal root mature age of 16 years in one of the lower quadrants reported in this work among Chinese Uyghur children.

METHODS

A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted. Subjects enrolled in the study were screened according to preset inclusion and exclusion criteria. The observer then obtained the dental age from the subjects' panoramic radiographs based on the estimated rules of the London Atlas, Willems, and a new quick method. Paired t-test was used to compare the accuracy and precision of the above three estimation methods. Independent-sample t-test was used to find the difference between gender.

RESULTS

Totally, 831 radiographs entered the analyses of this study. Among the three methods evaluated, the Willems method, in particular, showed a distinct underestimated tendency. The mean error of the dental age predicted by the London Atlas, the Willems method, and the quick method was 0.06 ± 1.13 years, 0.44 ± 1.14 years, and 0.30 ± 0.63 years, respectively. The mean absolute error was 0.86 ± 0.75 years according to the London Atlas, 1.17 ± 0.89 years under the Willems method, and 0.70 ± 0.54 years under our quick method. No significant difference was found between the chronological age and dental age using the London Atlas, generally for the 10 to 15 years group (p > 0.05), but our quick method for the 15-16 years children (p < 0.05) and Willems method (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The London Atlas outperformed the Willems method with better accuracy and precision among 10-15 years Chinese Uyghur children. Our new quick method may be comparable to the London Atlas for children aged 10-14 and potentially become a more straightforward dental age prediction instrument.