medigraphic.com
ISSN 2448-8011 (Electronic)
Revista de Divulgación del INSTITUTO DE MEDICINA FORENSE de la UNIVERSIDAD VERACRUZANA

2017, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Med Forense 2017; 2 (2)

Comparative analysis of the Lamendin technique and the Gonzalez-Colmenares technique for estimation of age in adults: original article

Pulido JN, Melo-Santiesteban G, Denis RE, Zamora HA

Language: Spanish
References: 22
Page: 11-22
PDF size: 571.19 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Age estimation is important but not always accessible; teeth are useful for this purpose because of their resistance to the changes produced after death; Lamendin technique is one of the most used method for dental age estimation, but it is based on European population; it is important to have scales that may be applicable to Mexican population.
Methods: Anterior teeth were extracted to measure root transparency, periodontosis and root length using a Vernier digital caliper; the measurements were analyzed with the formulas of Lamendin et al and Gonzalez-Colmenares et a., The description of the quantitative variables included the definition of maximum, minimum, average values as well as its Pearson correlation factor, also calculating the margin of error that exists between the obtained results and the real values, in order to obtain the level of concordance of the results of both tests with the actual values.
Results: We included 50 cadavers (68% men) with an average age of 40.9 (+/-10.6) years; using the Gonzalez-Colmenares formula, the mean age was 41.7 (+/- 10.58) years and with the Lamendin formula, the average age was 41.3 (+/- 10.61) years. When applying the Colmenares technique it is observed that the average age is 41.70 and that it has a sum of errors of -37.05. With Lamendin tecnhique we obtained an average age of 41.32 years and a sum of errors of -17.96; It can be seen that none of the techniques offers a margin of error of zero.
Conclusion: The Gonzalez-Colmenares method was not superior to the method of Lamendin in the precision and concordance of the real and bone age, although the sample was small; it is convenient to define methods of age determination applicable to Mexican population.


REFERENCES

  1. Adserias J, Nogué L, Zapico SC. (2017). Setting the light conditions for measuring root transparency for age-at-death estimation methods. Int J Legal Med, epub ahead of print.

  2. Baccino, E, Ubelaker H (1999). Evaluation of seven methods of estimating age at death from mature human skeletal remains. Jl Forensic Sci. 44(5):931-6.

  3. Baccino E, Sinfield L, Colomb S (2014). The two step procedure (TSP) for the determination of age at death of adult human remains in forensic cases. Forensic Sci Int. 244:247-51.

  4. De Angelis D, Mele E, Gibelli D (2015). The applicability of the Lamendin method to skeletal remains buried for a 16-year period: a cautionary note. J Forensic Sci. 60 Suppl 1:S177-81.

  5. Duangto P, Lamaroon A (2017). New models for age estimation and assessment of their accuracy using developing mandibular third molar teeth in a Thai population. Int J Legal Med. 131(2):559-568.

  6. Gibelli D, De Angelis D, Rosetti F (2014). Thermal modifications of root transparency and implications for aging: a pilot study. J Forensic Sci. 59(1):219-23

  7. Gonzalez G, Botella MC, Moreno G. (2007). Age estimation by a dental method: a comparison of Lamendin´s and Prince technique. Forensic Sci, 2007, 52(5): 1156-60.

  8. Gupta S, Chadra A (2017). Age estimation by dentin translucency measurement using digital method: An institutional study. J Forensic Dent Sci. 9(1):42.

  9. Lamendin H, Baccino E, Humbert JF (1992). A simple technique for age estimation in adult corpses: the two criteria dental method. J Forensic Sci. 37(5):1373-9.

  10. Marroquin TY, Karkhanis S, Kvaal S (2017). Age estimation in adults by dental imaging assessment systematic review. Forensic Sci Int. 275:203-211.

  11. Martille L, Ubelaker DH, Cattaneo C (2007). Comparison of four skeletal methods for the estimation of age at death on white and black adults. J Forensic Sci. 52(2):302-7.

  12. Megyesi MS, Ubelaker DH, Sauer NH (2006). Test of the Lamendin aging method on two historic skeletal samples. Am J Phys Anthropol. 131(3):363-7.

  13. Meinl A, Huber CD, Tangl S (2008). Comparison of the validity of three dental methods for the estimation of age at death. Forensic Sci Int. 178(2-3):96-105.

  14. Nayar AK, Parhar S (2017). Determination of age, sex, and blood group from a single tooth. J Forensic Dent Sci. 9(1):10-14.

  15. Puneeth KH, Nandini DB, Praveen SB (2016). A comparative study of efficacy of single rooted and double rooted teeth in age estimation using dentin translucency. J Forensic Odontostomatol. 2(34):1-10.

  16. Ramsthaler F, Kettner M, Verjoff MA (2014). Validity and reliability of dental age estimation of teeth root translucency based on digital luminance determination. Int J Legal Med. 128(1):171-6.

  17. Sanabria C, Gonzalez G, Restrepo HO. (2016). A contemporary Colombian skeletal reference collection: A resource for the development of population specific standards.

  18. Santoro V, Fiandaca C, Roca R (2015). Validity comparison of three dental methods for age estimation based on tooth root translucency. J Forensic Sci. 60(5):1310-5.

  19. Sarajilic N, Cihlarz Z, Klonowski EE (2006). Two-criteria dental aging method applied to a Bosnian population: comparison of formulae for each tooth group versus one formula for all teeth. Bosn J Basic Med Sci. 6(3):78-83.

  20. Schmitt A, Saliba B, Tremblay M (2010). An evaluation of statistical methods for the determination of age of death using dental root translucency and periodontosis. J Forensic Sci. 55(3):590-6.

  21. Soomer H, Ranta H, Lincoln MJ (2003). Reliability and validity of eight dental age estimation methods for adults. J Forensic Sci. 48(1):149-52.

  22. Timme M, Timme WH, Olze A. (2017). Dental age estimation in the living after completion of third molar mineralization: new data for Gustafson's criteria. Int J Legal Med. 131(2):569-577.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com