Dental age in patients with Down syndrome

The aim of this research was to evaluate dental age in 102 patients with Down Syndrome, using panoramic radiographs. A software program developed by the Discipline of Radiology, School of Dentistry of São José dos Campos, São Paulo State University (UNESP), was used. A table of mineralization chronology of permanent teeth among Brazilians conceived by Nicodemo, Moraes and Medici Filho was used within the software. Statistical analysis of the results showed that 70.91% of the males land 61.21% of the females presented advanced dental age. Only 32.09% of the males and 39.79% of the females presented delayed dental age. Regarding the differences between the dental and chronological ages, two thirds of the males and females presented dental age with differences of up to 12 months, which means that they can be considered to be within normal standards, whereas only 18.87% of the males and 10.21% of the females presented dental age outside normal standards, with differences of over 24 months. In conclusion, the majority of the patients with Down Syndrome were considered to be within the normal standards of mineralization chronology.

Comparative analysis between three methods of bone estimating age in individuals with down syndrome by mode of the hand and wrist ray

The wrist and hand region has been the most commonly used for estimating age and osseous development due to the great number of ossification centers. The aim was to determine which method, Tanner & Whitehouse's (TW3), Greulich & Pyle's (GP) or Eklof & Ringertz's, more closely relates to the chronological age in subjects with Down syndrome with chronological ages between 61 and 180 months, using wrist and hand radiographs. The sample consisted of 85 radiographs, 52 of males and 33 of females. Eklof & Ringertz's method was computerized (Radiomemory). Greulich & Pyle's atlas was used and compared with the wrist and hand radiographs. For the TW3 method, 13 ossification centers were evaluated; for each one of them, there are seven or eight development stages to which scores are assigned; these scores are then added and the results are transformed into osseous age values. No statistically significant differences were observed between the male and female genders for methods TW3 and GP, contrasting with the observed differences for the Eklof & Ringertz method. Correlation (r2) between osseous and chronological ages was 0.8262 for TW3 and 0.7965 for GP, while for the method of Eklof & Ringertz, it was 0.7656 for females and 0.8353 for males. The author concluded that the osseous age assessment method that better related to the chronological age was the TW3, followed by Greulich & Pyle's and Eklof & Ringertz's.