Age determination in children by orthopantomograph and lateral cephalogram: A comparative digital study


Anand Patel
Jigna Shah


Background and Aims: The assessment of age is useful in forensic medicine and forensic odontology and in treatment planning in various branch of dentistry. The aim of study is comparative evaluation and assessment of applicability of Demirjian's method, Willem's method of dental age (DA) estimation, and Maria de Paula Caldas's method of skeletal age estimation for children aged 9–16 years. Materials and Methods: A total of 140 individuals (70 females and 70 males) between the age group of 9–16 years were enrolled. These individuals were grouped by a difference of 1 year into 7 groups (each group comprising of 20 individuals: 10 males and 10 females). Dental age estimation was performed from orthopantomograph images of mandibular teeth of left quadrant by both Demirjian's and Willem's methods. Skeletal age estimation was done from Lateral Cephalogram by Caldas Digital Method. The differences between the chronological age and the estimated dental and skeletal ages were statistically tested using paired t-test. Results: Demirjian's DA estimation overestimated males (0.4040 years) and females (0.1316 years). Willem's DA estimation method underestimated males (0.1386 years) and females (0.4210 years) and Caldas skeletal age estimation overestimated males (0.2982 years) and females (0.4259 years). Conclusion: The study concluded Willem's DA estimation method was the most accurate for male and Demirjian's method for female for Gujarati Population. Caldas's new computer-assisted method for skeletal age estimation used in the present study is easy to perform and less time-consuming and objective method and can be applied for Gujarati population.


How to Cite
Anand Patel, & Jigna Shah. (2019). Age determination in children by orthopantomograph and lateral cephalogram: A comparative digital study. Journal of Forensic Dental Sciences, 11(3), 118–124.


  1. Limdiwala PG, Shah JS. Age estimation by using dental
  2. radiographs. J Forensic Dent Sci 2013;5:118‑22.
  3. Sivpathasundaram B. Shafer’s Textbook of Oral Pathology. 5th ed.
  4. Philadelphia: Elsevier Publishers; 2008. p. 1213‑5.
  5. Bhanat S, Patel D. Dental and skeletal maturity indicators of
  6. chronological age: Radiographic evaluation amongst children in
  7. Gujarat, India. J Dent Med Sci 2013;6:6‑12.
  8. Caldas Mde P, Ambrosano GM, Haiter Neto F. New formula to
  9. objectively evaluate skeletal maturation using lateral cephalometric
  10. radiographs. Braz Oral Res 2007;21:330‑5.
  11. Ogodescu AE, Bratu E, Tudor A, Ogodescu A. Estimation of
  12. child’s biological age based on tooth development. Rom J Leg Med
  13. ;19:115‑24.
  14. Urzel V, Bruzek J. Dental age assessment in children: A comparison
  15. of four methods in a recent French population. J Forensic Sci
  16. ;58:1341‑7.
  17. Djukic K, Zelic K, Milenkovic P, Nedeljkovic N, Djuric M. Dental
  18. age assessment validity of radiographic methods on Serbian
  19. children population. Forensic Sci Int 2013;231:398.e1‑5.
  20. Ambarkova V, Galić I, Vodanović M, Biočina‑Lukenda D, Brkić H.
  21. Dental age estimation using Demirjian and Willems methods: Cross
  22. sectional study on children from the Former Yugoslav Republic of
  23. Macedonia. Forensic Sci Int 2014;234:187.e1‑7.
  24. Ye X, Jiang F, Sheng X, Huang H, Shen X. Dental age assessment
  25. in 7‑14‑year‑old Chinese children: Comparison of Demirjian and
  26. Willems methods. Forensic Sci Int 2014;244:36‑41.
  27. Gupta S, Mehendiratta M, Rehani S, Kumra M, Nagpal R, Gupta R.
  28. Age estimation in Indian children and adolescents in the NCR
  29. region of Haryana: A comparative study. J Forensic Dent Sci
  30. ;7:253‑8.
  31. Willems G, Van Olmen A, Spiessens B, Carels C. Dental age
  32. estimation in Belgian children: Demirjian’s technique revisited.
  33. J Forensic Sci 2001;46:893‑5.
  34. Franco A, Thevissen P, Fieuws S, Souza PH, Willems G.
  35. Applicability of Willems model for dental age estimations in
  36. Brazilian children. Forensic Sci Int 2013;231:401.e1‑4.
  37. Mohammed RB, Krishnamraju PV, Prasanth PS, Sanghvi P,
  38. Lata Reddy MA, Jyotsna S. Dental age estimation using Willems
  39. method: A digital orthopantomographic study. Contemp Clin Dent
  40. ;5:371‑6.
  41. Caldas Mde P, Ambrosano GM, Haiter Neto F. Computer‑assisted
  42. analysis of cervical vertebral bone age using cephalometric
  43. radiographs in Brazilian subjects. Braz Oral Res 2010;24:120‑6.
  44. Demirjian A, Goldstein H, Tanner JM. A new system of dental age
  45. assessment. Hum Biol 1973;45:211‑27.
  46. Patel PS, Chaudhary AR, Dudhia BB, Bhatia PV, Soni NC, Jani YV.
  47. Accuracy of two dental and one skeletal age estimation methods
  48. in 6‑16 year old Gujarati children. J Forensic Dent Sci 2015;7:18‑27.
  49. El‑Bakary AA, Hammad SM, Ibrahim FM. Comparison between
  50. two methods of dental age estimation among Egyptian children.
  51. Mansoura J Forensic Med Clin Toxicol 2009;17:75‑86.
  52. Hegde RJ, Sood PB. Dental maturity as an indicator of chronological
  53. age: radiographic evaluation of dental age in 6 to 13 years children
  54. of Belgaum using Demirjian methods. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev
  55. Dent 2002;20:132‑8.
  56. Mani SA, Naing L, John J, Samsudin AR. Comparison of two
  57. methods of dental age estimation in 7‑15‑year‑old Malays. Int J
  58. Paediatr Dent 2008;18:380‑8.
  59. Demirjian A, Levesque GY. Sexual differences in dental development
  60. and prediction of emergence. J Dent Res 1980;59:1110‑22.
  61. Koshy S, Tandon S. Dental age assessment: The applicability of
  62. Demirjian’s method in South Indian children. Forensic Sci. Int
  63. ;94:73‑85.
  64. Prabhakar AR, Panda AK, Raju OS. Applicability of Demirjian’s
  65. method of age assessment in children of Davangere. J Indian Soc
  66. Pedod Prev Dent 2002;20:54‑62.