DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kullman, L.
Right arrow Articles by Lundholm, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Kullman, L.
Right arrow Articles by Lundholm, A.

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol 25, Issue 4 173-178, Copyright © 1996 by British Institute of Radiology


ARTICLES

Methods of reducing observer variation in age estimation from panoramic radiographs

L. Kullman, G. Tronje, A. Teivens and A. Lundholm
Department of Oral Radiology, School of Dentistry, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

OBJECTIVE: To compare inter- and intra-observer variation in age estimation using subjective and objective methods. METHODS: Fifty-six panoramic radiographs of patients aged 13 to 25 years were assessed subjectively twice by four observers for the stage of root development of the lower third molars on a seven-point scale. Two of the observers were calibrated before the first evaluation, and the other two before the second. The same observers also digitized predefined reference points in a subsample of the third molars ten times by means of a computer-based digitizer system. Observer variation in classifying different root stages and in digitizing coordinates and measuring root lengths were studied. RESULTS: Significant systematic differences existed between two of the observers in the subjective assessment. One non-pre-calibrated observer changed her pattern most. Scattergrams from the digitizer measurements showed a good precision within and between observers with no significant differences in calculating root lengths. When, however, the teeth were analysed separately, some significant differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: The overall observer agreement was best using the objective method on several teeth. With only one tooth there were some significant differences. Subjective evaluation was improved by prior calibration.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 1996 by the British Institute of Radiology.