Dental Age Estimation by Demirjian, Willems, and Cameriere Methods in Children with Familial Mediterranean Fever: A Case–Control Study

TL;DR

This study compared three methods for estimating dental age in children with FMF and found that the Willems method was the most accurate, with FMF not affecting dental maturation under colchicine treatment.

Contribution

The study evaluates the reliability of three dental age estimation methods in children with FMF, a population not previously well-studied in this context.

Findings

The Willems method provided the most accurate dental age estimates within a ±1-year margin.

FMF did not significantly affect dental maturation in children receiving regular colchicine therapy.

The Demirjian method consistently overestimated chronological age in both FMF and healthy children.

Abstract

What are the main findings?

The Willems method provided the most accurate estimates, while Demirjian consistently overestimated chronological age.

Similar dental ages were observed between children with familial Mediterranean fever (FMF) and healthy peers.

What are the implications of the main findings?

FMF, under regular colchicine treatment, does not negatively affect dental maturation.

Willems and Cameriere methods provide reliable dental age estimation in Turkish pediatric populations, including children with FMF.

Background and objectives: This study aimed to investigate the effects of familial Mediterranean fever (FMF)—a chronic inflammatory disease—on dental maturation regarding dental development using three dental age estimation methods. Methods: The orthopantomograms of 78 children diagnosed with FMF were compared with those of 78 systemically healthy control children. Demirjian, Willems, and Cameriere’s methods were used to estimate the dental age from seven teeth in the left mandible on the orthopantomograms. The data were analyzed using R statistical software. Results: The mean difference between dental age (DA) and chronological age (CA) using the Demirjian method was 0.646 in the control group and 0.753 in the FMF group (p = 0.595). For the Willems method, the mean DA versus CA difference was 0.283 in the control group and 0.322 in the FMF group (p = 0.835). Regarding the Cameriere method, the mean difference between DA and CA was −0.399 for the control group and −0.435 for the FMF group (p = 0.863), indicating no significant differences. At the ±1-year threshold, the Willems method showed the highest accuracy (69.87%), followed by the Cameriere method (66.67%), whereas the Demirjian method had the lowest accuracy (54.49%). These results suggest that the Willems method provides a more reliable estimate of chronological age within a ±1-year margin compared with the other two methods. Conclusions: Of the dental age estimators, the Willems method gave the closest age estimates. The Demirjian method overestimated the chronological age in both healthy children and children with FMF. For Turkish children receiving regular colchicine therapy, dental maturation was unaffected by FMF, suggesting that effective inflammatory control might preserve odontogenesis.