| Park Hyun,周卓君,陶疆,朱亚琴.两种方法推断上海地区青少年牙龄的比较研究[J].口腔材料器械杂志,2019,28(1):16-22. |
| 两种方法推断上海地区青少年牙龄的比较研究 |
| Comparison study on two different methods for estimating dental age in shanghai adolescents |
| 投稿时间：2018-07-09 修订日期：2018-10-08 |
| DOI：10.11752/j.kqcl.2019.01.04 |
| 中文关键词: 青少年 牙龄 Demirjian法 Willems法 |
| 英文关键词:Adolescents Dental age Demirjian method Willems method |
| 基金项目:国家自然科学基金青年项目（编号：81700949） |
| 作者 | 单位 | E-mail | | Park Hyun | 上海交通大学医学院附属第九人民医院口腔综合科, 上海市口腔医学重点实验室/上海市口腔医学研究所, 国家口腔疾病临床研究中心, 上海 200011 | | | 周卓君 | 上海交通大学医学院附属第九人民医院口腔综合科, 上海市口腔医学重点实验室/上海市口腔医学研究所, 国家口腔疾病临床研究中心, 上海 200011 | | | 陶疆 | 上海交通大学医学院附属第九人民医院口腔综合科, 上海市口腔医学重点实验室/上海市口腔医学研究所, 国家口腔疾病临床研究中心, 上海 200011 | | | 朱亚琴 | 上海交通大学医学院附属第九人民医院口腔综合科, 上海市口腔医学重点实验室/上海市口腔医学研究所, 国家口腔疾病临床研究中心, 上海 200011 | zyq1590@163.com |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 879 |
| 全文下载次数: 572 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 分别运用Demirjian法和Willems法推断上海地区青少年的牙龄，评估两种方法的适用性及准确性。方法 选取上海交通大学医学院附属第九人民医院影像科符合纳入标准的11~18岁青少年口腔曲面断层片共1122例，其中男性444例，女性678例；分别使用Demirjian法和Willems法评估左下颌7颗恒牙的总成熟度后得到牙龄，对实际年龄与推断的牙龄之间进行配对t检验或Wilcoxon秩和检验；通过比较两种方法的平均绝对误差（Mean Absolute Error， MAE），对两种方法的准确度进行评估。结果 Demirjian法推断的牙龄与实际年龄相比，男性低估0.35岁、女性低估0.27岁。而用Willems法推断时，牙龄比实际年龄分别低估0.64岁（男性）和0.67岁（女性）。统计学结果显示，两种方法推断的牙龄与实际年龄之间均有显著差异（P<0.05））。对比Demirjian法和Willems法的MAE， Demirjian法的MAE为1.23岁； Willems法的MAE为1.27岁。结论 相较于Willems法， Demirjian法的准确度和适用性较高。两种方法均不适用于直接推断上海地区青少年的牙龄，应用时需要对其进行修正。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To evaluate the applicability and accuracy of Demirjian and Willems methods of dental age estimation for Shanghai adolescents. Methods 1 122 digital panoramic radiographs (adolescents between 11 to 18 years old) of 444 boys and 678 girls were selected from Radiology Department of the Ninth People's Hospital. Panoramic radiographs were used to evaluate the maturity score of seven left mandibular teeth. Dental age was assessed by using Demirjian and Wilems methods. The discrepancies between chronological ages and dental ages were statistically analyzed by the paired t-test or Wilcoxon Signed rank test. The mean absolute error (MAE) between chronological age and dental age was compared to evaluate the accuracy between two methds. The Demirjian MAE and Willems MAE was statistically analyzed by the paired t-test according to different sexuality. Results The chronological age and dental age was compared by Demirjian method. The Demirjian method underestimated 0.35 y for boys and 0.27 y for girls. While the Willems method underestimated 0.64 y for boys and 0.67 y for girls. There was statistically significant difference between chronological age and dental age (P<0.01). The MAE was 1.23 years in the entire sample according to Demirjian method and 1.27 years according to Willems method. Conclusions The Demirjian method was more accurate than Willems method. But both methods are not suitable for estimating dental age in Shanghai adolescents. It should be modified before use. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |