Evaluating the accuracy of root transparency and periodontosis age estimation models in a Portuguese population

• Type: Article in International Scientific Journal
• Date: 2025

Authors

Rocha, V (Author) Other; Mendes, F (Author) Other; Pereira ML (Author) FMDUP; Caldas IM (Author) FMDUP

Journal

Title: Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology

ISSN: 1547-769X

Publisher: Springer Nature

Indexing

ISI Web of Knowledge - 0 Citations

Scopus - 0 Citations

Other information

Authenticus ID: P-018-HGD

DOI: 10.1007/s12024-025-01000-z

Abstract (EN): This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of existing dental age estimation models, including the Lamendin, Prince & Ubelaker, Fialho, and modified Fialho methods, within a Portuguese population. Dental techniques, particularly those involving root transparency and periodontosis, are examined due to their relevance in forensic age estimation. A sample of 166 single-rooted teeth from individuals aged 30 to 86 was analyzed. Measurements included root transparency, periodontosis, and tooth and root length. Statistical methods were applied to assess the reliability and accuracy of each model in estimating age, considering the potential influence of environmental and lifestyle factors on dental aging. Root transparency emerged as a robust age indicator, consistently correlating with chronological age. In contrast, periodontosis introduced variability due to external influences, reducing its reliability. The modified Fialho model, which focuses solely on root transparency, showed the highest accuracy, suggesting that eliminating periodontosis from the estimation process may enhance reliability in populations where environmental factors heavily affect dental aging. The findings underscore the importance of population-specific adjustments in dental age estimation models. By refining methods like the modified Fialho model, forensic investigations can achieve more accurate results, particularly in populations where external factors influence periodontosis.

Language: English

Type (Professor's evaluation): Scientific

No. of pages: 11