Article Data

  • Views 827
  • Dowloads 172

Original Research

Open Access

Correlation of Dental Maturity with Skeletal Maturity from Radiographic Assessment: A Review

  • John M. Morris1
  • Jae Hyun Park1,*,

1Postgraduate Orthodontic Program, Arizona School of Dentistry & Oral Health, A.T. Still University, 5835 East Still Circle, Mesa, AZ .

DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.36.3.l403471880013622 Vol.36,Issue 3,May 2012 pp.309-314

Published: 01 May 2012

*Corresponding Author(s): Jae Hyun Park E-mail: JPark@atsu.edu

Abstract

There have been many attempts to correlate dental development with skeletal growth. The relationship is generally considered to be moderate at best. However, there is evidence that hand-wrist radiographic interpretation of remaining growth can be augmented by taking into account the developing dentition. In addition, the practicality of evaluating routine dental radiographs and avoiding additional radiation is advantageous. To this point, no system has been described to match apical development by Demirjian’s stages and compare it to skeletal development and remaining growth. This study reviewed articles pertinent to the relationship between developing teeth and skeletal maturity and remaining growth, and a system is proposed to give practitioners an additional assessment for growth and development.

Keywords

dental maturity, skeletal maturity, cervical vertebrae maturity, mandibular third molar

Cite and Share

John M. Morris,Jae Hyun Park. Correlation of Dental Maturity with Skeletal Maturity from Radiographic Assessment: A Review. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2012. 36(3);309-314.

References

1. Sharma AB, Vargervik K. Using implants for the growing child. J Calif Dent Assoc, 34: 719–724, 2006.

2. Carmichael RP, Sándor GKB. Dental implants, growth of the jaws, and determination of skeletal maturity. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am, 16: 1–9, 2008.

3. Sahin Sağlam AM, Gazilerli U. The relationship between dental and skeletal maturity. J Orofac Orthop, 63: 454–462, 2002.

4. McIntyre GT. Treatment planning in Class III malocclusion. Dent Update, 31: 13–20, 2004.

5. Uysal T, Sari Z, Ramoglu SI, Basciftci FA. Relationships between dental and skeletal maturity in Turkish subjects. Angle Orthod, 74: 657–664, 2004.

6. Demisch A, Wartmann P. Calcification of the mandibular third molar and its relation to skeletal and chronological age in children. Child Dev, 27: 459–473, 1956.

7. Başaran G, Ozer T, Hamamci N. Cervical vertebral and dental maturity in Turkish subjects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 131: 447.e13–20, 2007.

8. Prieto JL, Barbería E, Ortega R, Magaña C. Evaluation of chronological age based on third molar development in the Spanish population. Int J Legal Med, 119: 349–354, 2005.

9. Lewis JM, Senn DR. Dental age estimation utilizing third molar development: A review of principles, methods, and population studies used in the United States. Forensic Sci Int, 201: 79–83, 2010.

10. Fishman LS. Radiographic evaluation of skeletal maturation. A clinically oriented method based on hand-wrist films. Angle Orthod, 52: 88–112, 1982.

11. Fishman LS. Chronological versus skeletal age, an evaluation of craniofacial growth. Angle Orthod, 49: 181–189, 1979.

12. Fishman LS. Maturational patterns and prediction during adolescence. Angle Orthod, 57: 178–193, 1987.

13. Hassel B, Farman AG. Skeletal maturation evaluation using cervical vertebrae. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 107: 58–66, 1995.

14. Kamal M, Goyal S. Comparative evaluation of hand wrist radiographs with cervical vertebrae for skeletal maturation in 10-12 years old children. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent, 24: 127–135, 2006.

15. Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Major PW. Use of skeletal maturation based on hand-wrist radiographic analysis as a predictor of facial growth: a systematic review. Angle Orthod, 74: 118–124, 2004.

16. Hunter CJ. The correlation of facial growth with body height and skeletal maturation at adolescence. Angle Orthod, 36: 44–54, 1966.

17. Verma D, Peltomäki T, Jäger A. Reliability of growth prediction with hand-wrist radiographs. Eur J Orthod, 31: 438–442, 2009.

18. van Rijn RR, Lequin MH, Robben SG, Hop WC, van Kuijk C. Is the Greulich and Pyle atlas still valid for Dutch Caucasian children today? Pediatr Radiol, 31: 748–752, 2001.

19. Thodberg HH, Neuhof J, Ranke MB, Jenni OG, Martin DD. Validation of bone age methods by their ability to predict adult height. Horm Res Paediatr, 74: 15–22, 2010.

20. Gomes AS, Lima EM. Mandibular growth during adolescence. Angle Orthod, 76: 786–790, 2006.

21. Silveira AM, Fishman LS, Subtelny JD, Kassebaum DK. Facial growth during adolescence in early, average and late maturers. Angle Orthod, 62: 185–190, 1992.

22. Alexander AEZ, McNamara JA, Franchi L, Baccetti T. Semilongitudinal cephalometric study of craniofacial growth in untreated Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 135: 700–701, 2009.

23. Mora S, Boechat MI, Pietka E, Huang HK, Gilsanz V. Skeletal age determinations in children of European and African descent: applicability of the Greulich and Pyle standards. Pediatr Res, 50: 624–628, 2001.

24. Sidlauskas A, Zilinskaite L, Svalkauskiene V. Mandibular pubertal growth spurt prediction. Part one: Method based on the hand-wrist radiographs. Stomatologija, 7: 16–20, 2005.

25. Wolford LM, Karras SC, Mehra P. Considerations for orthognathic surgery during growth, part 2: maxillary deformities. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 119: 102–105, 2001.

26. Sato K, Mito T, Mitani H. An accurate method of predicting mandibular growth potential based on bone maturity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 120: 286–293, 2001.

27. Mourelle R, Barbería E, Gallardo N, Lucavechi T. Correlation between dental maturation and bone growth markers in paediatric patients. Eur J Paediatr Dent, 9: 23–29, 2008.

28. Gabriel DB, Southard KA, Qian F, et al. Cervical vertebrae maturation method: poor reproducibility. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 136: 478–480, 2009.

29. Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA. An improved version of the cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of mandibular growth. Angle Orthod, 72: 316–323, 2002.

30. Gandini P, Mancini M, Andreani F. A comparison of hand-wrist bone and cervical vertebral analyses in measuring skeletal maturation. Angle Orthod, 76: 984–989, 2006.

31. San Román P, Palma JC, Oteo MD, Nevado E. Skeletal maturation determined by cervical vertebrae development. Eur J Orthod, 24: 303–311, 2002.

32. Lai EH, Liu J, Chang JZ, et al. Radiographic assessment of skeletal maturation stages for orthodontic patients: hand-wrist bones or cervical vertebrae? J Formos Med Assoc, 107: 316–325, 2008.

33. Gu Y, McNamara JA. Mandibular growth changes and cervical vertebral maturation. a cephalometric implant study. Angle Orthod, 77: 947–953, 2007.

34. Fudalej P, Bollen A. Effectiveness of the cervical vertebral maturation method to predict postpeak circumpubertal growth of craniofacial structures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 137: 59–65, 2010.

35. Gleiser I, Hunt EE. The permanent mandibular first molar: its calcification, eruption and decay. Am J Phys Anthropol, 13: 253–283, 1955.

36. Demirjian A, Goldstein H, Tanner JM. A new system of dental age assessment. Hum Biol, 45: 211–227, 1973.

37. Gustafson G, Koch G. Age estimation up to 16 years of age based on dental development. Odontol Revy, 25: 297–306, 1974.

38. Harris MJ, Nortjé CJ. The mesial root of the third mandibular molar. A possible indicator of age. J Forensic Odontostomatol, 2: 39–43, 1984.

39. Kullman L, Johanson G, Akesson L. Root development of the lower third molar and its relation to chronological age. Swed Dent J, 16: 161–167, 1992.

40. Olze A, Bilang D, Schmidt S, et al. Validation of common classification systems for assessing the mineralization of third molars. Int J Legal Med, 119: 22–26, 2005.

41. Dhanjal KS, Bhardwaj MK, Liversidge HM. Reproducibility of radiographic stage assessment of third molars. Forensic Sci Int, 159 Suppl 1: S74–77, 2006.

42. Lewis AB. Comparisons between dental and skeletal ages. Angle Orthod, 61: 87–92, 1991.

43. Nadler GL. Earlier dental maturation: fact or fiction? Angle Orthod, 68: 535–538, 1998.

44. Chertkow S. Tooth mineralization as an indicator of the pubertal growth spurt. Am J Orthod, 77: 79–91, 1980.

45. Coutinho S, Buschang PH, Miranda F. Relationships between mandibular canine calcification stages and skeletal maturity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 104: 262–268, 1993.

46. So LL. Skeletal maturation of the hand and wrist and its correlation with dental development. Aust Orthod J, 15: 1–9, 1997.

47. Engström C, Engström H, Sagne S. Lower third molar development in relation to skeletal maturity and chronological age. Angle Orthod, 53: 97–106, 1983.

48. Sierra AM. Assessment of dental and skeletal maturity. A new approach. Angle Orthod, 57: 194–208, 1987.

49. Lauterstein AM. A cross-sectional study in dental development and skeletal age. J Am Dent Assoc, 62: 161–167, 1961.

50. Demirjian A, Buschang PH, Tanguay R, Patterson DK. Interrelationships among measures of somatic, skeletal, dental, and sexual maturity. Am J Orthod, 88: 433–438, 1985.

51. Rózylo-Kalinowska I, Kolasa-Raczka A, Kalinowski P. Relationship between dental age according to Demirjian and cervical vertebrae maturity in Polish children. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20558591 accessed August 15th, 2010.

52. Sisman Y, Uysal T, Yagmur F, Ramoglu SI. Third-molar development in relation to chronologic age in Turkish children and young adults. Angle Orthod, 77: 1040–1045, 2007.

53. Krailassiri S, Anuwongnukroh N, Dechkunakorn S. Relationships between dental calcification stages and skeletal maturity indicators in Thai individuals. Angle Orthod, 72: 155–166, 2002.

54. Cho S, Hwang C. Skeletal maturation evaluation using mandibular third molar development in adolescents. Korean J Orthod, 39: 120, 2009.

55. Steel GH. The relation between dental maturation and physiological maturity. Dent Pract Dent Rec, 16: 23–34, 1965.

56. Bai Y, Mao J, Zhu S, Wei W. Third-molar development in relation to chronologic age in young adults of central China. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technol Med Sci, 28: 487–490, 2008.

57. So LL. Correlation of sexual maturation with stature and body weight & dental maturation in southern Chinese girls. Aust Orthod J, 14:18–20, 1995.

58. Moore RN. Principles of dentofacial orthopedics. Semin Orthod, 3: 212–221, 1997.

59. Moore RN, Moyer BA, DuBois LM. Skeletal maturation and craniofacial growth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 98: 33–40, 1990.

60. Hägg U, Taranger J. Maturation indicators and the pubertal growth spurt. Am J Orthod, 82: 299–309, 1982.

61. Kucukkeles N, Acar A, Biren S, Arun T. Comparisons between cervical vertebrae and hand-wrist maturation for the assessment of skeletal maturity. J Clin Pediatr Dent, 24: 47–52, 1999.

62. Masoud MI, Masoud I, Kent RL, et al. Relationship between bloodspot insulin-like growth factor 1 levels and hand-wrist assessment of skeletal maturity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 136: 59–64, 2009.

63. McNamara JA, Bookstein FL, Shaughnessy TG. Skeletal and dental changes following functional regulator therapy on Class II patients. Am J Orthod, 88: 91–110, 1985.

64. Hägg U, Pancherz H. Dentofacial orthopaedics in relation to chronological age, growth period and skeletal development. An analysis of 72 male patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion treated with the Herbst appliance. Eur J Orthod, 10: 169–176, 1988.

65. Pancherz H, Hägg U. Dentofacial orthopedics in relation to somatic maturation. An analysis of 70 consecutive cases treated with the Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod, 88: 273–287, 1985.

66. Malmgren O, Omblus J, Hägg U, Pancherz H. Treatment with an orthopedic appliance system in relation to treatment intensity and growth periods. A study of initial effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 91: 143–151, 1987.

67. Weaver N, Glover K, Major P, Varnhagen C, Grace M. Age limitation on provision of orthopedic therapy and orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 113: 156–164, 1998.

68. Wolford LM, Cassano DS, Cottrell DA, et al. Orthognathic surgery in the young cleft patient: preliminary study on subsequent facial growth. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 66: 2524–2536, 2008.

69. Bailey LJ, White RP, Proffit WR, Turvey TA. Segmental LeFort I osteotomy for management of transverse maxillary deficiency. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 55: 728–731, 1997.

70. Kokich VG, Spear FM. Guidelines for managing the orthodonticrestorative patient. Semin Orthod, 3: 3–20, 1997.

71. Richardson G, Russell KA. Congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors and orthodontic treatment considerations for the single-tooth implant. J Can Dent Assoc, 67: 25–28, 2001.

72. Lewis BRK, Gahan MJ, Hodge TM, Moore D. The orthodontic-restorative interface: 2. Compensating for variations in tooth number and shape. Dent Update, 37: 138–140, 142–144, 146–148, 2010.

73. Fudalej P, Kokich VG, Leroux B. Determining the cessation of vertical growth of the craniofacial structures to facilitate placement of singletooth implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 131(4 Suppl): S59–67, 2007.

74. Bernard JP, Schatz JP, Christou P, Belser U, Kiliaridis S. Long-term vertical changes of the anterior maxillary teeth adjacent to single implants in young and mature adults. A retrospective study. J Clin Periodontol, 31: 1024–1028, 2004.

75. Sharma AB, Vargervik K. Using implants for the growing child. J Calif Dent Assoc, 34: 719–724, 2006.

76. Bhat VJ, Kamath GP. Age estimation from root development of mandibular third molars in comparison with skeletal age of wrist joint. Am J Forensic Med Pathol, 28: 238–241, 2007.

77. Moorrees CF, Fanning EA, Hunt EE. Age variation of formation stages for ten permanent teeth. J Dent Res, 42: 1490–1502, 1963.

78. Introna F, Santoro V, De Donno A, Belviso M. Morphologic analysis of third-molar maturity by digital orthopantomographic assessment. Am J Forensic Med Pathol, 29: 55–61, 2008.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top