From: Association between dental age and malocclusions: a systematic review
Study ID | Criteria for DA evaluation | Malocclusion evaluated (criteria) | Sex | N | Mean CA | SD | Mean DA | SD | DA-CA | SD | Description of results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Celikoglu et al., 2011 [13] | Demirjian | Class I (ANB=0-4º) | Male | 77 | 12.59 | NR | 13.17 | NR | 0.58 | NR | • In both sexes, patients with Class III skeletal malocclusion presented the most advanced DA. • DA was overestimated in this sample in relation to the CA. |
Female | 85 | 13.01 | NR | 13.64 | NR | 0.63 | NR | ||||
Class II (ANB > 5º) | Male | 95 | 12.75 | NR | 13.85 | NR | 1.1 | NR | |||
Female | 91 | 12.39 | NR | 13.47 | NR | 1.08 | NR | ||||
Class III (ANB <0) | Male | 84 | 12.45 | NR | 13.6 | NR | 1.15 | NR | |||
Female | 93 | 11.39 | NR | 12.77 | NR | 1.38 | NR | ||||
Esenlik, Atak and Altun, 2014 [31] | Demirjian | Class I (ANB=NR) | Male | 49 | 11.71 | 1.65 | 12.05 | 1.71 | 0.34 | 0.75 | • In the male group, Class III patients presented the most advanced DA in relation to the other skeletal malocclusion. • In the female group, Class II patients presented the most advanced DA in relation to the other skeletal malocclusion. • DA was overestimated in this sample in relation to the CA. |
Female | 58 | 11.57 | 1.85 | 12.18 | 1.94 | 0.61 | 1.28 | ||||
Class II Class I (ANB=NR) | Male | 75 | 12.29 | 1.41 | 12.49 | 1.31 | 0.2 | 0.79 | |||
Female | 77 | 11.61 | 1.42 | 12.66 | 1.65 | 1.05 | 0.85 | ||||
Class III Class I (ANB=NR) | Male | 32 | 10.98 | 1.44 | 11.35 | 1.6 | 0.37 | 1 | |||
Female | 30 | 10.44 | 1.81 | 11.24 | 1.91 | 0.8 | 1.03 | ||||
Lauc et al., 2017 [6] | Willems | Class I (ANB=0-4º) | Male | 136 | 11.71 | 1.94 | 12.11 | 2.54 | 0.4 | 1.13 | • DA was overestimated in this sample in relation to the CA. • In the male group, Class III patients presented the most advanced DA in relation to the other skeletal malocclusion. • In the female group, no significant difference in DA was observed among the skeletal malocclusions. |
Female | 148 | 12 | 2.01 | 12.52 | 2.5 | 0.53 | 1.12 | ||||
Class II (ANB > 5º) | Male | 100 | 11.67 | 2 | 12.11 | 2.54 | 0.44 | 1.03 | |||
Female | 118 | 11.96 | 1.86 | 12.38 | 2.53 | 0.43 | 1.17 | ||||
Class III (ANB ≤0) | Male | 132 | 11.96 | 2.17 | 12.79 | 2.65 | 0.83 | 0.97 | |||
Female | 142 | 12.19 | 1.96 | 12.68 | 2.57 | 0.49 | 1.07 | ||||
Lauc et al., 2017 [38] | Cameriere | Class I (ANB=0-4º) | Male | 136 | 11.71 | 1.94 | 11.44 | 2.04 | -0.26 | 0.72 | • DA was underestimated in this sample in relation to the CA. • In the male Class III group, the underestimation of the DA was less prominent as compared to the other malocclusion groups. • In the female group, no significant difference in DA was observed among the skeletal malocclusions. |
Female | 148 | 12 | 2.01 | 11.86 | 1.7 | -0.14 | 0.91 | ||||
Class II (ANB > 5º) | Male | 100 | 11.67 | 2 | 11.44 | 1.9 | -0.23 | 0.76 | |||
Female | 118 | 11.96 | 1.86 | 11.75 | 1.72 | -0.20 | 0.73 | ||||
Class III (ANB ≤0) | Male | 132 | 11.96 | 2.17 | 11.93 | 1.99 | -0.02 | 0.73 | |||
Female | 142 | 12.19 | 1.96 | 11.94 | 1.74 | -0.24 | 0.73 | ||||
Mahmood and Fida, 2018 [36] | Demirjian | Class I (Angle) | Male | NR | NR | NR | 13.53 | 2.3 | NR | NR | • In the male group, Class I and Class III patients presented a significantly higher DA than Class II patients. • In the female group, no difference was found. |
Female | NR | NR | NR | 13.41 | 2.22 | NR | NR | ||||
Class II (Angle) | Male | NR | NR | NR | 12.57 | 2.03 | NR | NR | |||
Female | NR | NR | NR | 13.34 | 2.15 | NR | NR | ||||
Class III (Angle) | Male | NR | NR | NR | 13.64 | 2.07 | NR | NR | |||
Female | NR | NR | NR | 13.59 | 2 | NR | NR |