SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2017 / Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 3

A practical formula for determining growth

ÇAĞRI TÜRKÖZ
EMİNE KAYGISIZ
MEHMET ÇAĞRI ULUSOY
CAN ATEŞ
Pages
194–198
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

CONCLUSION The formula derived for evaluating skeletal age in cephalometric radiographs is reliable and can be applied to both girl and boy subjects for legal requirements or therapeutic needs of age estimation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:We aimed to establish a practical method to evaluate skeletal age using cervical vertebrae.
📊
Key Findings & Data:METHODS The study consisted of hand-wrist and cephalometric radiographs of 324 subjects (167 girls, 157 boys; age range, 7.3–17.2 years).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:CONCLUSION The formula derived for evaluating skeletal age in cephalometric radiographs is reliable and can be applied to both girl and boy subjects for legal requirements or therapeutic needs of age estimation.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

We aimed to establish a practical method to evaluate skeletal age using cervical vertebrae. METHODS The study consisted of hand-wrist and cephalometric radiographs of 324 subjects (167 girls, 157 boys; age range, 7.3–17.2 years). Skeletal ages of the subjects were calculated from hand-wrist radiographs, and cervical vertebral bodies were measured using cephalometric radiographs. A single formula based on C3 and C4 vertebral body heights with different coefficients for each gender was derived using ridge regression analysis. RESULTS The correlation coefficients for vertebral and hand-wrist bone age were 0.825 and 0.856 for girls and boys, respectively. The correlations among vertebral bone age and C3 and C4 vertebral body heights were also found to be significant. The intraclass correlation (ICC) score was found to be 0.914, which shows high consistency between the two measurements of the same investigator for each C3 and C4 vertebral body height result. CONCLUSION The formula derived for evaluating skeletal age in cephalometric radiographs is reliable and can be applied to both girl and boy subjects for legal requirements or therapeutic needs of age estimation.

🔖

Cite This Article

TÜRKÖZ, Ç., KAYGISIZ, E., ULUSOY, M. Ç., ATEŞ, C. (2017). A practical formula for determining growth. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 3, 194–198. https://ajindex.com/articles/195358

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (5)

  1. Kucukkeles N, Acar A, Biren S, Arun T. Comparisons between cervical vertebrae and handwrist maturation for the assessment of skeletal maturity. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1999; 224: 47–52
  2. Pinchi V, De Luca F, Ricciardi F, et al. Skeletal age estimation for forensic purposes: A comparison of GP, TW2 and TW3 methods on an Italian sample. Forensic Sci Int 2014; 238: 83–90. [CrossRef] 3. Darmawan MF, Yusuf SM, Kadir MR, Haron H. Comparison on three classification techniques for sex estimation from the bone length of Asian children below 19 years old: an analysis using different group of ages. Forensic Sci Int 2015; 247:130.e1–11. [CrossRef] 4. Darmawan MF, Yusuf SM, Abdul Kadir MR, Haron H. Age estimation based on bone length using 12 regression models of left hand X-ray images for Asian children below 19 years old. Leg Med (Tokyo) 2015; 17:71–78. [CrossRef] 5. Gertych A, Zhang A, Sayre J, Pospiech-Kurkowska S, Huang HK. Bone age assessment of children using a digital hand atlas. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2007; 31:322–331. [CrossRef] 6. Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA Jr. The cervical vertebral maturation method for the assessment of optimal treatment timing in dentofacial orthopedics. Semin Orthod 2005; 11:119–129. [CrossRef] 7. Litsas G, Ari-Demirkaya A. Growth indicators in orthodontic patients. Part 2: comparison of cervical bone age to hand-wrist skeletal age. Relationship with chronological age. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2010; 11:176–180
  3. Uysal T, Ramoglu SI, Basciftci FA, Sari Z. Chronologic age and skeletal maturation of the cervical vertebrae and hand-wrist: is there a relationship? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130:622–628. [CrossRef] 9. Sato K, Mito T, Mitani H. An accurate method of predicting mandibular growth potential based on bone maturity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 120:286–293. [CrossRef] 10. Greulich W, Pyle S. Radiographic atlas of skeletal development of the hand and wrist. Palo Alto, Calif: Stanford University Press; 1959
  4. Moore RN. Principles of dentofacial orthopedics. Semin Orthod 1997; 3:212–221. [CrossRef] 12. O’Reilly M, Yanniello G. Mandibular growth changes and maturation of cervical vertebrae – a longitudinal cephalometric study. Angle Orthod 1988; 58:179–184
  5. Hassel B, Farman AG. Skeletal maturation evaluation using cervical vertebrae. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995; 107:58–66. [CrossRef] 14. Danaei SM, Karamifar A, Sardarian A. Measuring agreement between cervical vertebrae and hand-wrist maturation