ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The need for accurate techniques of estimating age has sharply increased in line with the rise in illegal migration and the political, economic and socio-demographic problems that this poses in developed countries today. The methods routinely employed for determining chronological age are mainly based on determining skeletal maturation using radiological techniques. The objective of this study was to correlate five different methods for assessing skeletal maturation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 606 radiographs of growing patients were analyzed, and each patient was classified according to two cervical vertebral-based methods, two hand-wrist-based methods and one tooth-based method. Spearman's rank-order correlation coefficient was applied to assess the relationship between chronological age and the five methods of assessing maturation, as well as correlations between the five methods (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Spearman's rank correlation coefficients for chronological age and cervical vertebral maturation stage using both methods were 0.656/0.693 (p < 0.001), respectively, for males. For females, the correlation was stronger for both methods. The correlation coefficients for chronological age against the two hand-wrist assessment methods were statistically significant only for Fishman's method, 0.722 (p < 0.001) and 0.839 (p < 0.001), respectively for males and females. CONCLUSIONS: The cervical vertebral, hand-wrist and dental maturation methods of assessment were all found to correlate strongly with each other, irrespective of gender, except for Grave and Brown's method. The results found the strongest correlation between the second molars and females, and the second premolar and males. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study sheds light on and correlates with the five radiographic methods most commonly used for assessing skeletal maturation in a Spanish population in southern Europe.
Subject(s)
Age Determination by Skeleton/methods , Cervical Vertebrae/diagnostic imaging , Molar/diagnostic imaging , Wrist/diagnostic imaging , Adolescent , Cervical Vertebrae/growth & development , Child , Female , Humans , Male , Molar/growth & development , Radiography , Statistics, Nonparametric , Wrist/growth & developmentABSTRACT
La maloclusión esquelética severa de clase II conlleva la necesidad de tratamientos complejos para la corrección completa de la alteración. La cirugía supone la solución en determinados pacientes, sobre todo fuera de crecimiento. Por otro lado, la distracción osteogénica es la alternativa para casos en crecimiento y sobre todo para el tratamiento de severas anomalías dentofaciales. En este artículo, realizamos una revisión de la literatura, para intentar exponer las opiniones contrapuestas de los diversos autores que apoyan las diferentes alternativas. Intentamos exponer las controversias y fijar las pautas que se han de seguir en la resolución de los trastornos severos de clase II que serán abordados mediante estos 2 procedimientos (AU)
