RESUMO
Background: Most of the scientific formulae for age estimation in forensic odontology were tested among western population and hence cannot be applied to the Indian population consistently. Therefore, it was in this context that Dr. Ashith B. Acharya had carried out a study using the modified Demirjian's method in Indian population and found out that the study gave inferior results for age estimation. So he developed Indian-specific regression analysis and worked out a formula. Aim: This study was done to validate age using Demirjian's eight-teeth method and to compare the effectiveness of Demirjian's formula and Indian-specific formula in Kanyakumari population. Material and Methods: Digital orthopantomographs of 150 patients fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria in the age group of 8–24 years were used in the study. The third quadrant in the radiograph was assessed visually from mandibular central incisor to the third molar using Demirjian's modified criteria chart. Calculation of the dental age was done using Demirjian's formula and Ashith B. Acharya's Indian-specific formula. The difference between chronological age and dental age was calculated, and the mean absolute error (MAE) was obtained. Results: The MAE was 0.20 years for the whole of Kanyakumari population, and for males it was 0.10 years and for females 0.29 years with Indian-specific formula, whereas the MAE was 2.66, 1.86, and 3.51 years, respectively, for the whole of Kanyakumari population, males, and females using Demirjian's formula. Conclusion: The observations from this study suggest that the MAE was less between chronological age and estimated dental age which was calculated using Indian-specific formula, compared with the values obtained using Demirjian's formula. Thereby we conclude that Indian-specific formula is more reliable in age estimation of Kanyakumari population.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of different power-calculation formulas in predicting the postoperative refraction of three-piece and one-piece intraocular lenses (IOL). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 74 eyes (62 patients) that had undergone cataract surgery involving implantation of one of two IOLs―the SENSAR® AAB00 1-Piece Acrylic IOL (44 eyes), or the Hoya® VA60BB 3-Piece Acrylic IOL (30 eyes)―between October 2014 and March 2015. Axial length was measured using an optical low-coherence refractometry (Lenstar®), and biometry was then calculated by the pre-installed Lenstar program, which used the SRK/II, Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff/Theoretical (SRK/T), and Hoffer Q formulas. Mean absolute error (MAE) and mean numeric error (MNE) were measured 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, and 2 months after surgery. RESULTS: Using the SRK/T and Hoffer Q formulas, the one-piece IOL group differed significantly from the three-piece IOL group in terms of the MNE obtained 1 month and 2 months after surgery. Across all formulas and time points, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of MAE. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between the different power-calculation formulas. Starting 1 month after surgery, the three-piece IOL group showed myopic postoperative refraction compared to the predictive spherical equivalent using the SRK/T and Hoffer Q formulas.