ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to verify the precision and applicability of two methods of age estimation, Kvaal's and Cameriere's methods, among Brazilian adults. A sample composed of periapical radiographs of canine teeth belonging to 320 Brazilian adults was analyzed, divided into groups according to sex (male and female) and age group (20-29 years, 30-39 years, 40-49 years and 50-59 years). Kvaal's method presented better results when compared to the results of Cameriere's method in the general evaluation of each canine tooth, except for the upper left canine (tooth 23), which presented a mean error (ME) with no statistically significant difference between the methods (Kvaal: ME = 7.43, p = 0.4991, Cameriere: ME = 7.55, p = 0.6982). In the evaluation by age groups, Kvaal's method presented a lower variation between the real age and estimated age when applied to the age groups of 20-29 years and 30-39 years compared to the results provided by Cameriere's method. With respect to the groups aged 40 to 49 years and 50 to 59 years, Cameriere's method presented better performance than the results provided by Kvaal's method. The methods of estimating age proposed by Kvaal and Cameriere are simple and nondestructive and have demonstrated reproducibility and reliability. The Kvaal method was more accurate for the age groups of 20-29 and 30-39 years, and for those over 40 years, the Cameriere method was the most accurate.
Subject(s)
Age Determination by Teeth/methods , Adult , Age Factors , Brazil , Cuspid/anatomy & histology , Cuspid/diagnostic imaging , Female , Forensic Dentistry/methods , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Radiography, Dental, Digital/methods , Reference Standards , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
Abstract The aim of this study was to verify the precision and applicability of two methods of age estimation, Kvaal's and Cameriere's methods, among Brazilian adults. A sample composed of periapical radiographs of canine teeth belonging to 320 Brazilian adults was analyzed, divided into groups according to sex (male and female) and age group (20-29 years, 30-39 years, 40-49 years and 50-59 years). Kvaal's method presented better results when compared to the results of Cameriere's method in the general evaluation of each canine tooth, except for the upper left canine (tooth 23), which presented a mean error (ME) with no statistically significant difference between the methods (Kvaal: ME = 7.43, p = 0.4991, Cameriere: ME = 7.55, p = 0.6982). In the evaluation by age groups, Kvaal's method presented a lower variation between the real age and estimated age when applied to the age groups of 20-29 years and 30-39 years compared to the results provided by Cameriere's method. With respect to the groups aged 40 to 49 years and 50 to 59 years, Cameriere's method presented better performance than the results provided by Kvaal's method. The methods of estimating age proposed by Kvaal and Cameriere are simple and nondestructive and have demonstrated reproducibility and reliability. The Kvaal method was more accurate for the age groups of 20-29 and 30-39 years, and for those over 40 years, the Cameriere method was the most accurate.
