Comparison of the validity of two dental age estimation methods: A study on South Indian population


B Shruthi
Mandana Donoghue
M Selvamani
P Kumar


Background: Forensic odontologists are often confronted with the problem of estimating age for the identification of unknown bodies or skeletal remains of accidents, crimes and disaster victims. Teeth have the benefit of being preserved long after other tissues have disintegrated and present the only means for age estimation. Different techniques have been published for dental age estimation with variable accuracy, precision and reliability. The search for optimal method by forensic odontologists has continued over the years until the present day. Aim: The present study was aimed at evaluating and comparing the accuracy of age estimation using translucent dentin and cemental annulations. Materials and Methods: A total of 150 freshly extracted teeth were obtained and longitudinal ground sections were prepared. The length of the translucent dentin was measured and cemental annulations were counted in each section and the age was calculated separately for both the methods. Results and Conclusion: The present study suggests that both the methods are reliable in the middle age groups; whereas the large error obtained in the extreme age groups indicate that translucent dentin method should be preferred in older age group and cemental annulations method in the younger age group before the formation of translucent dentin.


How to Cite
B Shruthi, Mandana Donoghue, M Selvamani, & P Kumar. (2015). Comparison of the validity of two dental age estimation methods: A study on South Indian population. Journal of Forensic Dental Sciences, 7(3), 189–194.


  1. Bhargava K, Bhargava D, Rastogi P, Paul M, Paul R, Jagdeesh HG, et al. An overview of bite mark analysis. J Indian Acad Forensic Med 2012;34:61‑6.
  2. Stavrianos C, Aggelakopoulos N, Stavrianou P, Pantelidou O, Vasiliadis L, Grigoropoulos L. Comparison of human and dogs bite marks. J Vet Adv 2011;10:2649‑54.
  3. SweetD, Bowers CM. Accuracy of bite mark overlays: Acomparison of five common methods to produce exemplars from a suspect’s dentition. J Forensic Sci 1998;43:362‑7.
  4. Kouble RF, Craig GT. A comparison between direct and indirect methods available for human bite mark analysis. J Forensic Sci 2004;49:111‑8.
  5. Lyver PO. Identifying mammalian predators from bite marks: A tool for focusing wildlife protection. Mammalian review. Mamm Soc 2000;30:31‑43.
  6. Benson BW, Cottone JA, Bomberg TJ, Sperber ND. Bite mark impressions: A review of techniques and materials. J Forensic Sci 1988;33:1238‑43.
  7. Tedeschi‑OliveiraSV, TrigueiroM, OliveiraRN, MelaniRF. Intercanine distance in the analysis of bite marks: A comparison of human and domestic dog dental arches. J Forensic Odontostomatol 2011;29:30‑6.
  8. Erdman KA, Colon JE. Recognition of human bite marks: What the dental hygienist should know. American Dental Hygienists Association: 2013;27:24‑5.
  9. Kaushal N. Humanbite marks in skin: A review. Internet J Biol Anthropol 2011;4:22‑9.
  10. Sudarshan MK, Mahendra BJ, Madhusudana SN, Ashwoath Narayana DH, RahmanA, Rao NS, et al. An epidemiological study of animal bites in India: Results of a WHO sponsored national multi‑centric rabies survey. J Commun Dis 2006;38:32‑9.
  11. Van der Velden A, Spiessens M, Willems G. Bite mark analysis and comparison using image perception technology. J Forensic Odontostomatol 2006;24:14‑7.
  12. Sweet D, Shutler GG. Analysis of salivary DNA evidence from a bite mark on a body submerged in water. J Forensic Sci 1999;44:1069‑72.
  13. Metcalf RD. Yet another method for marking incisal edges of teeth for bitemark analysis. J Forensic Sci 2008;53:426‑9.
  14. Mughal IA, Saqib AS, Manzur F. Mandibular canine index (MCI); its role in determining gender. Professional Med J 2010;17:459‑63.