[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Next Article in Journal
Transfer-Learning-Based Estimation of the Remaining Useful Life of Heterogeneous Bearing Types Using Low-Frequency Accelerometers
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Wavelet Kernels on Predictive Capability of Radiomic Features: A Case Study on COVID-19 Chest X-ray Images
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
J. Imaging
Volume 9
Issue 2
10.3390/jimaging9020033
jimaging-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Age Assessment through Root Lengths of Mandibular Second and Third Permanent Molars Using Machine Learning and Artificial Neural Networks

by
Vathsala Patil
1,†,
Janhavi Saxena
1,†,
Ravindranath Vineetha
1,*,
Rahul Paul
2,
Dasharathraj K. Shetty
3,
Sonali Sharma
4,
Komal Smriti
1,
Deepak Kumar Singhal
5 and
Nithesh Naik
6,7,*
1
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India
2
Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA
3
Department of Data Science and Computer Applications, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India
4
Department of Biomedical Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 34212, Saudi Arabia
5
Department of Public Health Dentistry, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India
6
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India
7
Curiouz TechLab Private Limited, BIRAC-BioNEST, Manipal Government of Karnataka Bioincubator, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Imaging 2023, 9(2), 33; https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging9020033
Submission received: 10 November 2022 / Revised: 26 January 2023 / Accepted: 26 January 2023 / Published: 1 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Topic Digital Dentistry)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Measurement of mesial and distal root lengths of left mandibular second and third molars in (<b>a</b>) 12–years–old female patient and (<b>b</b>) 20–years–old male patient.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Block diagram illustrating the various steps involved in building a Deep Learning–based tool for automated analysis and classification of data into the specified categories.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Heatmap representation of Pearson correlation among age groups and root lengths.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Accuracy plot of training and validation of Deep Learning Neural network model.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Confusion matrix from the best predictive model: (<b>A</b>) 2–Class prediction, (<b>B</b>) 3–Class prediction SVM, and (<b>C</b>) Random Forest 5–Class prediction.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>The diagnostic evaluation of the model for 2–Class prediction of (<b>A</b>) ROC curve for the LR, SVM, and RF, and (<b>B</b>) ROC curve for the DL algorithm.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>SHAP plots showing feature importance in descending order by bee swarm plot: (<b>A</b>) 2–Class classification (SVM): best result; (<b>B</b>) 2–Class classification (Random Forest): second best result; (<b>C</b>) 3–Class classification (SVM): best result; and (<b>D</b>) 2–Class classification (Deep Learning).</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Plot of prediction versus true value: (<b>A</b>) Random Forest Regressor and (<b>B</b>) Extra Tree Regressor.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The present study explores the efficacy of Machine Learning and Artificial Neural Networks in age assessment using the root length of the second and third molar teeth. A dataset of 1000 panoramic radiographs with intact second and third molars ranging from 12 to 25 years was archived. The length of the mesial and distal roots was measured using ImageJ software. The dataset was classified in three ways based on the age distribution: 2–Class, 3–Class, and 5–Class. We used Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), and Logistic Regression models to train, test, and analyze the root length measurements. The mesial root of the third molar on the right side was a good predictor of age. The SVM showed the highest accuracy of 86.4% for 2–class, 66% for 3–class, and 42.8% for 5–Class. The RF showed the highest accuracy of 47.6% for 5–Class. Overall the present study demonstrated that the Deep Learning model (fully connected model) performed better than the Machine Learning models, and the mesial root length of the right third molar was a good predictor of age. Additionally, a combination of different root lengths could be informative while building a Machine Learning model.

1. Introduction

Age estimation plays a remarkable role in forensic medicine. From identifying individuals and casualties in natural disasters to decrypting medico-legal cases, it effectively assists in narrowing search possibilities [1,2,3]. Age estimation methods also help to assess instances of legal maturity in judging prosecution as a juvenile or as an adult, which aids in deciding the severity of punishment for criminal offenses. Teeth are preferred for age estimation as they have high durability and resistance to heat, chemicals, putrefaction, and other factors. Many fields, such as anthropology, archaeology, forensic science, pediatric dentistry, and orthodontics, use developing teeth to measure and estimate age and maturity [4,5].
Age estimation using teeth can be performed through visual, radiographic, chemical, and histological methods [5]. Radiographic methods are based on estimating the stages of dental development by identifying the mineralization of the crown and root apex maturation [6]. The visual technique is based on the eruption order of teeth and morphological indicators of aging, such as attrition, deposition of secondary dentin, and color changes. The histological methods require the extraction/sectioning of the tooth, whereas the chemical examination of dental hard tissues determines changes in ion levels with age [7]. Morphological features, such as the amount of occlusal attrition, coronary secondary dentin deposition, cementum apposition on the root apex, root resorption, and dentinal transparency are used in Gustafson’s age estimation method [8]. Similarly, Moore, Fanning, and Hunt have studied 14 stages of mineralization of developing teeth using panoramic and lateral oblique radiographs. Kvaal et al. and Cameriere et al. have used pulp size measurements through intra–oral periapical radiographs [9,10,11].
The late adolescence to early adulthood transition phase has vital implications in medico–legal cases. Nearly all permanent teeth would have completed their eruption process at this age except for the third molars. Hence, this transition age primarily depends on the chronology of the mineralization of third molars [12]. However, in most conditions, third molars are either congenitally missing, impacted, extracted, or malpositioned, making them less suitable for age assessment [13]. Previous studies have determined the second molar’s maturation stages as a valid marker for age assessment. Hence, in this transition phase of adolescence to early adulthood, using the third and second molar can prove beneficial in age estimation [8]. Although earlier studies have employed the subjective analysis of root forms and compared them with compiled charts, they were associated with subjective bias [9,10,11,14]. To overcome these subjective errors, observer–independent and objective methods are essential. Measurements allow for the development of mathematical models and parametric statistics. Root length measurements in age estimation in permanent teeth can eliminate methodological variations.
An Artificial Neural Network (ANN) uses mathematical models and algorithms to analyze and interpret data. Machine Learning (ML) is a type of data analysis that “learns” intrinsic statistical patterns to make predictions on unseen data. Deep Learning is a Machine Learning technique that employs multi–layer mathematical operations to learn and infer complicated inputs, such as images [15]. Neural networks rely on training data to learn and improve their accuracy over time. Once these learning algorithms are tuned for precision, they are powerful tools in artificial intelligence, allowing for classifying and clustering data at a high velocity. Neural networks were limited by computing power. However, advancements in Big Data analytics and access to higher computing resources have permitted more extensive, more sophisticated neural networks. Deep Learning is a subset of Machine Learning that aids image classification, language translation, and speech recognition. It can solve any pattern recognition problem without human intervention [16,17]. Tasks in speech recognition or image recognition can take minutes rather than hours compared with manual identification by human experts [18]. Deep Learning’s application in forensic medicine has been explored over recent years due to its advantages of accuracy and precision in age and gender estimation [18,19,20].
A previous study utilized X–ray images of teeth along with Machine Learning techniques to achieve 97% accuracy in age estimation, which implies that Machine Learning can be applied effectively in forensic investigations to obtain accurate and quick results [19]. Gender determination on panoramic radiographs using neural networks also exhibited good gender prediction compared with other methods, such as logistic and discriminant analysis [20]. Age estimation using artificial intelligence through first molar images of both the right and left sides of the maxilla and mandible has also yielded highly accurate results [21]. Deep Convolutional Neural Networks using orthopantomography have also been applied to estimate the age of children using the features of teeth [21]. Hence, the present study is carried out to explore the efficacy of Machine Learning and Deep Learning in age estimation using the second and third molar root lengths. Clinical judgments with the help of Machine Learning models in the health care system using interpretable and precise models are beneficial and in demand. Hence, using the above background, the present study was planned to explore the use of machine learning.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This retrospective study was carried out from the archives of the Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology section (from March 2017 to March 2021) at Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal. We selected 1000 digital panoramic radiographs of individuals aged between 12 and 25 years. Radiographs of individuals belonging to the southern part of the state (South Indian population) were considered after verifying their address from medical records. The difference between the date of birth provided in the dental record and the date on which the radiograph was taken was considered to calculate the age of the individual. Radiographs with diagnostically acceptable images of intact mandibular second and third molars were included in the study. Radiographs with the third and second molars missing or obscured due to artifacts, trauma, or fracture lines of the mandible passing through these molars were excluded. The radiographs that showed various lesions, syndromes, and developmental disorders were also excluded.
The study was conducted after receiving approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee (I.E.C. No: 249/2021).

2.2. Measurements

The lengths of the roots of the right and left mandibular second and third molars were measured using ImageJ, a Java–based image processing software developed at the National Institute of Health and the Laboratory for Optical and Computational Instrumentation. (Figure 1). A scale for measurement was set using a fixed distance in pixels and a known distance in millimeters (mm). The length of the root was measured by dividing the crown and root portion by a horizontal line passing through the cement–enamel junction (C.E.J.) on the mesial and distal portion of the crown.
Measurements were made by drawing a vertical line from this dividing line to the visible apex of the root, as shown in Figure 1. Mesio–buccal and distobuccal root lengths of both the right and left second and third mandibular molars were measured (Figure 1) and tabulated on an M.S. Excel spreadsheet along with the age and gender of the individual. All the measurements were made by a trained dental graduate (Observer 1—J.S.). The measurements were made after reaching a consensus with two oral radiologists (V.P. and R.V.) and a trained dental graduate (J.S.). Intra–observer reliability was derived by repeating the measurements of ten percent of the sample size by Observer 1 (J.S.) on a different day. The intra–observer correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the agreement, and it was found to be in very good agreement, with a value of 0.96.

2.3. Data Processing

The output was classified into three categories, namely 2–Class, 3–Class, and 5–Class, depending on the age distribution, as shown in Figure 2. The dataset included 1000 patients, with information on distal and mesial root lengths from second and third molars on the left and right sides.
We used 75% of the data for training and 25% for testing. Missing data imputation was conducted by replacing the empty spaces with the mean of that particular column wherever data were missing. The data were normalized by making the observed values’ mean and standard deviation 0 and 1, respectively. We also used Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) as the feature extractor as an alternative to the strategy with no feature selection in building a Deep Learning model.

2.4. Computational Techniques

Our research utilized explanatory methods, such as SHAP, which aids in understanding ML model prediction [22], and we also used Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), and Logistic Regression (LR) algorithms for classification, training, testing, and analyzing the data [23,24,25]. Different regressors were used to compute the predicted value versus the true value using a Random Forest (RF) Regressor; Extra Tree Regression (ETR); XGBoost Regressor, which is a decision tree–based ensemble Machine Learning algorithm; and a Gradient Boosting Regressor [26,27,28,29].
Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) is a feature extraction strategy that uses knowledge from all classes to create a new axis to project data in such a way that the intra–class variance is significantly reduced while the inter–class average distance is enhanced. As an alternative to the strategy with no feature selection, we also used LDA as the feature extractor.
The Deep Learning model is used to obtain various outputs and compare their results to fine–tune the considered models. The ideal and optimum neural network design in this study was determined using AutoKeras, an autoML platform built on the Keras framework. A two–layer fully connected network was constructed by Autokeras (layer 1: 32 neurons; layer 2: 16 neurons), which was then succeeded by a final classification layer with just 1 neuron and a sigmoid function. To reduce overfitting, a dropout layer (0.2) was inserted after layer 2. The network was trained using binary cross–entropy loss with a batch size of 16. The Deep Learning model was trained by splitting the training data (75% of the original dataset) further into training data for DL (75%) and validation data for DL (25%).

2.5. Performance Measurement

A confusion matrix is useful in visualizing the predictive performance of a Machine Learning model with respect to the actual labels. Precision and recall can be computed directly from the confusion matrix. Hence, Accuracy, AUC, Recall, and Precision were used to evaluate the developed model. The commonly used diagnostic evaluation tool is the AUC–ROC (area under the curve–receiver operating characteristic) score. It is a measure of how effectively a model can distinguish between classes. The true positive rate (sensitivity) is plotted as a function of the false positive rate (100 specificity) at various threshold settings, and the area the curve covered is called the AUC–ROC score. AUC has a value ranging from 0 and 1. A model with 100% false predictions has an AUC of 0.0, while a model with 100% accurate predictions has an AUC of 1.0. Statistical significance of the improvement in AUC between different methods and classifiers was calculated using standard error (SE) and a 2-tailed p-value of 0.05 [30,31].
The regression model performance was assessed using mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), and R square, which are critical to evaluate the performance of any regression model. RMSE and MAE measure the distance between real and predicted value, hence the model predictiveness increases with decreasing RMSE and MAE. Pearson’s correlation was used to find the correlation between the root length and patient age. This method is used to analyze whether a strong relationship exists between the dependent and independent variables. Hence, the correlation coefficient r is used to measure the strength of the relationship among various variables. This analytical technique is based on the premise that determining the significance of a pertinent attribute in the data can be conducted by analyzing the strength of the association between dependent and target variables [32,33,34,35].

2.6. Feature Importance

In the present study, the Shapley Additive Explanations, or SHAP technique, is used to analyze each feature’s value affecting the anticipated output to comprehend the suggested classification models. SHAP was created based on Shapley’s values. As a concept for a cooperative game theory solution, it was initially presented by Lloyd Shapley in 1951. SHAP analyzes each feature and its importance to the model output based on Shapley data. In the SHAP summary plot, the X and Y axes, respectively, depict the SHAP and feature values, and a color map is used to indicate the SHAP values of each feature (blue and red illustrate low and high tooth length values, respectively [36,37].

3. Results

Figure 3 displays correlations among the demographic factor (age) and clinical parameters (root length). The correlation plot showed limited correlation between age and root length. The left and right third molar mesial and distal teeth showed a moderate (0.7) correlation with age.
The classification performance of the established algorithms is described in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. Table 1 shows the classification performance analysis of the LDA with the feature extractor. The SVM demonstrates the highest accuracy of 86.8%, 66%, and 44% in 2–Class, 3–Class, and 5–Class, respectively, whereas it is observed that the accuracy is lesser in the RF classifier. This output is due to the denser network of SVMs compared with the RF. The Recall of the SVM is to be the best in comparison with all classes and classifiers, making it the most suitable. When compared with the SVM, RF had the highest AUC (0.83). However, across all employed classifiers, the AUC improvement is statistically significant.
Table 2 shows the classification performance analysis of the LDA with no feature extractor. The SVM showed the highest Accuracy of 86.4% and 66% in 2–Class and 3–Class, respectively, whereas an Accuracy of 42.8% was obtained for 5–Class. The RF showed the highest Accuracy of 47.6% for 5–Class.
The SVM had the highest Accuracy of all three; however, the Precision of the RF in 3–Class made it the best performer for 3–Class, with the SVM regaining the best precision in 5–Class. Hence, the specific models can be used in the following class distributions: 2–Class—SVM; 3–Class—RF; and 5–Class—SVM.
The Deep Learning classification (Table 3) shows the highest Accuracy, AUC, and Recall in comparison with the other Machine Learning models considered in the study.
Figure 4 is a plot showing the Accuracy of the Deep Learning network training and the validation. It is observed that the Accuracy increases with an increase in epochs with respect to the training dataset, and the validation Accuracy changes from 94% to 87.2%. Hence, the training and validation Accuracy is balanced, indicating that the network is not of high bias or variance.
The confusion matrix from the best predictive model of the 2–Class, 3–Class, and 5–Class models is shown in Figure 5. Figure 5A illustrates the confusion matrix of the best 2–Class model, where the misclassification rate of the samples from the age 20–25 subjects (Group 1) is very low compared with ages 12–19 (Group 0). The confusion matrix from the best 3–Class predictive model is displayed in Figure 5B, which shows that all samples from age 23 and above (Group 2) were misclassified. As the samples were grouped with a three–year difference, the 5–Class confusion matrix (Figure 5C) became more diverse. There is a good amount of false positive and false negative samples in the age groups 18–20 (Group 2) and 21–23 (Group 3).
Figure 6 depicts the ROC curve from the best Machine Learning and Deep Learning models for two–class classification. The Deep Learning model’s AUC (0.88) improvement was compared with the best model from the LDA feature selector (RF: 0.83 AUC) and no feature selector (SVM: 0.82 AUC). The Deep Learning model was not statistically significant at p = 0.05 compared with LDA (p = 0.129) and no feature selector (p = 0.074).
As shown in Table 2, the SVM gives the highest accuracy in all the classes, except Deep Learning in 2–Class. SHAP was used to assess the best Machine Learning and Deep Learning model’s predictive performance (shown in Figure 7). Figure 7a shows the SHAP value with respect to the length of the mesial and distal roots. In the case of 2–Class, RF performance is the second best, which is observed in comparison with the smaller number of positive SHAP values (Figure 7b) using the SVM. In the case of the 3–Class classification, as shown in Figure 7c, the SVM classifier provides the best result. The SHAP plot (Figure 7d) from the Deep Learning model showed the right side third molar mesial root as the top distinguishable feature.

4. Regression

Figure 8a shows the output of the RF Regressor, and the plot shows the data points are more focused on the mid–R square value. Figure 8b shows that the Extra Tree Regressor has a more scattered plot, with the R square value going down.
Table 4 shows the results obtained from various regressors used in the present study with R square values ranging from 0.56 to 0.58.
Random Forest Regressor and Extra Tree Regressor models had an R square value of 0.58; however, the Extra Tree Regressor generated lower MAE and RMSE scores.

5. Discussion

Teeth are a reliable adjunct in age estimation as they are easily obtained as evidence even after other body parts have disintegrated. The development of human dentition exhibits a chronological pattern, with crown formation to root completion exhibiting sequential calcification. They further follow age–wise eruption and exfoliation patterns. Previous studies in the literature have used these factors for estimating age [5,6,7,8]. However, the length of the root as an indicator of age has not been explored to date.
The roots of the second and third permanent molars are the only dental structure that continues their development throughout adolescence after all the other teeth have erupted [12,13,38]. The root formation of the second permanent molar completes at the age of 14–16 years, while the root of the third permanent molar continues to grow even after the complete development of the second permanent molar [39,40]. This pattern of growth makes them a viable tool for age estimation. Although a few studies are using the morphological features of second and third permanent molars for the prediction of age [12,39,40,41], no studies have used the root length in age estimation. Hence, in the present study, we evaluated the efficacy of root length in the age assessment amongst individuals in the transition phase of early childhood to late adolescence. Haaviko et al. [42] developed an age estimation method based on the recognition of 12 radiographic stages of 4 teeth. Wilmott et al. [43] employed Haaviko’s method and found that the stage wise assessment of root formation estimated age more accurately than eruption level. Maber M et al. [38] stated that the second molar showed higher accuracy, while Mesotten et al. [44] and Gunst K et al. [41] reported third molar root formation as an appropriate indicator of age estimation [41,44]. Hence these patterns of accuracy determined by these researchers justify the usages of mandibular second and third permanent molars.
When the sample of root lengths was divided as per the age into different groups, the classification with two groups (Class 2 with Group 0 having 12–18 years and Group 1 having 19–25 years) showed the highest accuracy of 86.8% (SVM), 86.0% (RF), and 84.8% (LR). Group 0 with ages ranging from 12 to 18 years had 0.29 percent of patients misclassified, whereas Group 1, which has ages from 19 years and above, had only 0.07 percent of patients misidentified, indicating that Group 0 teeth lengths could be close to Group 1. Group 0 showed more variation in root lengths compared with Group 1. This could be attributed to the fact that a majority of root formation occurs from 12 to 18 years of age.
The three–group classification (Class 3 with Group 0 having 12–16 years, Group 1 having 17–21 years, and Group 2 having 22–25 years) depicted an accuracy of 66.0% (SVM), 60.0% (RF), and 60.4% (LR). The five–group classification (Class 5 with Group 0 having 12–14 years, Group 1 having 15–17 years, Group 2 having 18–20 years, Group 3 having 21–23 years, and Group 4 having 24–25 years) showed an accuracy of 44.0% (SVM), 42.4% (RF), and 40.4% (LR). This showed that when the sample was divided into multiple smaller age groups, decreased accuracy was noted. This is because in Machine Learning, most of the Group 2 samples were predicted to be Group 1 due to the greater fluctuation of the root length below the age of 21 years. Therefore, the Machine Learning classifier was unable to differentiate much between the smaller classification—Class 5 in comparison with Class 3 and Class 2—resulting in a reduction in classification performance. However, the poor performance for 5–Class classification does not inherently imply that the proposed classification strategy is insufficient; it could be the consequence of the limited sample size in each group when dividing the data into five classes.
The correlation plot showed a low–to–moderate correlation (0.7) among the root lengths. Hence, combining different root lengths in age estimation can be more beneficial while building Machine Learning models. The SVM showed the highest accuracy, which can be attributed to the denser network of the SVM compared with the RF. The recall value of the SVM is also best in comparison with all classes. Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) is a feature extraction strategy that uses knowledge from all classes to create a new axis to project data in such a way that the intra–class variance is significantly reduced while the inter–class average distance is enhanced [32,33]. The incorporation of the LDA feature–extracting technique to find the subset of features of the data has proven to be efficient and has resulted in an increase in classification accuracy of 10%. LDA feature selection was compared with the “no feature selector” approach. It was observed that the accuracy decreased if there was no feature extractor. Hence, the LDA extractor was the preferred method [24,25,27]. The SVM had the highest accuracy of all three; however, the precision of the RF in 3–Class made it the best performer for 3–Class, with the SVM regaining the best precision in 5–Class. This shows that the specific models (2–Class: SVM; 3–Class: RF; and 5–Class: SVM) can be used in the following class distributions.
SHAP was used to explain the Machine Learning models [32]. SHAP analysis offered two significant benefits. SHAP provided the knowledge of which features had the strongest influences on the multiclass classifier model. Second, SHAP offered an explainability for the black box Machine Learning and Deep Learning models, aiding in the development of confidence and acceptability for these models. It is important to note that the patterns demonstrated in the SHAP values depicted the trend learned by the Machine Learning model rather than the actual features themselves [32].
In the present study, it was evident that the right third molar–mesial root was the most important feature for age prediction through both the SVM and RF classifiers. A higher value of the right third molar–mesial root length was a strong predictor of age 19 and above, whereas the lower value of the right third molar mesial root length corresponded to ages 12–18 years. For classification models with 2–Class, 3–Class, and 5–Class, the right third molar mesial root ranked as the most significant feature for age prediction.
In the present study, regression algorithms were also analyzed to evaluate the continuous prediction of age from the length of the teeth. Regression models achieved moderate results on the separated test set. The Extra Tree Regressor achieved the best regression performance of 0.58 R square, 1.81 MAE, and 2.38 RMSE. The present study utilized the dataset from one institute and employed the manual measurement of teeth length. The multi–institute data will be helpful for validation, which is a limitation of the present study. In the future, the development of an automated tool to assess teeth length will enhance rapid processing and may further improve the performance of the predictive models. In this study, among the second and third molars’ mesial and distal roots, the right side of the third molar’s mesial root proved to be a good age predictor.

6. Conclusions

The study demonstrated how interpretable Machine Learning and Deep Learning models could be applied to predict age using second and third molar root lengths. The findings of the present investigation showed that the Deep Learning model performed better than the Machine Learning model and the right third molar mesial root length was a good predictor of age. To further improve, diversify, and clinically deploy the algorithms, an extension of the training data set to include more radiographs from multiple sources is required. The findings demonstrate the great prospect of neural network–based Machine Learning and Deep Learning models for assisting dentists in legal response, archaeology, and forensic sciences. Further research is required to extend and include more extensive human–machine comparison investigations. This reproducible approach will aid in the legal, archaeology, and forensic science domains for age estimation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.P., J.S. and R.V.; methodology, V.P., J.S., R.V. and R.P.; software, R.P. and D.K.S. (Dasharathraj K. Shetty); investigation, S.S., K.S. and D.K.S. (Dasharathraj K. Shetty); resources, S.S., K.S. and D.K.S. (Deepak Kumar Singhal); data curation, J.S., R.V. and R.P; writing—original draft preparation, V.P., J.S., D.K.S. (Deepak Kumar Singhal) and K.S.; writing—review and editing, R.V., R.P. and N.N.; visualization, V.P. and R.V.; project administration, V.P., R.V. and N.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research has not received external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This research was conducted with permission from the Institutional Ethics Committee. Data acquisition and analysis were performed with the protocols approved by the Institutional Ethics committee (ethical approval number (I.E.C. No: 249/2021) dated on 9th June 2021. All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent Statement

All authors consent to the publication of this manuscript and are aware of its submission.

Data Availability Statement

All data and material collected are presented in the manuscript. Clarification on any matter can be made through the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, for providing digital panoramic radiographs from the archive, and the Department of Data Science and Computer Applications, Manipal Institute of Technology, for the support extended for the computational facility.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kurniawan, A.; Chusida, A.; Atika, N.; Gianosa, T.K.; Solikhin, M.D.; Margaretha, M.S.; Utomo, H.; Marini, M.I.; Rizky, B.N.; Prakoeswa, B.F.W.R.; et al. The Applicable Dental Age Estimation Methods for Children and Adolescents in Indonesia. Int. J. Dent. 2022, 2022, 6761476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lossois, M.; Baccino, E. Forensic age estimation in migrants: Where do we stand? WIREs Forensic Sci. 2020, 3, e1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Manjrekar, S.; Deshpande, S.; Katge, F.; Jain, R.; Ghorpade, T. Age Estimation in Children by the Measurement of Open Apices in Teeth: A Study in the Western Indian Population. Int. J. Dent. 2022, 2022, 9513501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Swami, D.; Mishra, V.K.; Bahal, L.; Rao, C.M. Age estimation from eruption of temporary teeth in Himachal Pradesh. J. Forensic. Med. Toxicol. 1992, 9, 3–7. [Google Scholar]
  5. Uzuner, F.D.; Kaygısız, E.; Darendeliler, N. Defining Dental Age for Chronological Age Determination. Post Mortem Exam Autops. 2018, 6, 77–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Panchbhai, A. Dental radiographic indicators, a key to age estimation. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2011, 40, 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Singh, C.; Singal, K. Teeth as a tool for age estimation: A mini review. Age 2017, 11, 4–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. AlQahtani, S. Dental Age Assessment. Forensic Odontology: An Essential Guide; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; pp. 137–166. [Google Scholar]
  9. Kvaal, S.I.; Kolltveit, K.M.; Thomsen, I.O.; Solheim, T. Age estimation of adults from dental radiographs. Forensic Sci. Int. 1995, 74, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Narnbiar, P. Age estimation using third molar development. Malaysian J. Pathol. 1995, 17, 31–34. [Google Scholar]
  11. Guo, Y.-C.; Chu, G.; Olze, A.; Schmidt, S.; Schulz, R.; Ottow, C.; Pfeiffer, H.; Chen, T.; Schmeling, A. Age estimation of Chinese children based on second molar maturity. Int. J. Leg. Med. 2017, 132, 807–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fins, P.; Pereira, M.L.; Afonso, A.; Pérez–Mongiovi, D.; Caldas, I.M. Chronology of mineralization of the permanent mandibular second molar teeth and forensic age estimation. Forensic Sci. Med. Pathol. 2017, 13, 272–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Schwendicke, F.; Samek, W.; Krois, J. Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry: Chances and Challenges. J. Dent. Res. 2020, 99, 769–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Sweet, D. Why a dentist for identification? Dent. Clin. N. Am. 2001, 45, 237–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Jambunath, U.; Govindraju, P.; Balaji, P.; Poornima, C.; Latha, S.F. Sex determination by using mandibular ramus and gonial angle—A preliminary comparative study. Int. J. Contem. Med. Res. 2016, 3, 3278–3280. [Google Scholar]
  16. Acharya, A.B.; Prabhu, S.; Muddapur, M.V. Odontometric sex assessment from logistic regression analysis. Int. J. Leg. Med. 2010, 125, 199–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Angadi, P.V.; Hemani, S.; Prabhu, S.; Acharya, A.B. Analyses of odontometric sexual dimorphism and sex assessment accuracy on a large sample. J. Forensic Leg. Med. 2013, 20, 673–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Patil, V.; Vineetha, R.; Vatsa, S.; Shetty, D.K.; Raju, A.; Naik, N.; Malarout, N. Artificial neural network for gender determination using mandibular morphometric parameters: A comparative retrospective study. Cogent Eng. 2020, 7, 1723783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Santosh, K.C.; Pradeep, N.; Goel, V.; Ranjan, R.; Pandey, E.; Shukla, P.K.; Nuagah, S.J. Machine Learning Techniques for Human Age and Gender Identification Based on Teeth X–Ray Images. J. Health Eng. 2022, 2022, 8302674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Kim, S.; Lee, Y.-H.; Noh, Y.-K.; Park, F.C.; Auh, Q.-S. Age–group determination of living individuals using first molar images based on artificial intelligence. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kahaki, S.M.M.; Nordin, J.; Ahmad, N.S.; Arzoky, M.; Ismail, W. Deep convolutional neural network designed for age assessment based on orthopantomography data. Neural Comput. Appl. 2019, 32, 9357–9368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Vishwanathan, S.V.; Smola, A.; Murty, N. SSVM: A simple SVM algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2002 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, Honolulu, HI, USA, 12–17 May 2002; Volume 3, pp. 2393–2398. [Google Scholar]
  23. Biau, G. Analysis of a random forests model. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2012, 13, 1063–1095. [Google Scholar]
  24. Nusinovici, S.; Tham, Y.C.; Yan, M.Y.C.; Ting, D.S.W.; Li, J.; Sabanayagam, C.; Wong, T.Y.; Cheng, C.-Y. Logistic regression was as good as machine learning for predicting major chronic diseases. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2020, 122, 56–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Minderer, M.; Djolonga, J.; Romijnders, R.; Hubis, F.; Zhai, X.; Houlsby, N.; Tran, D.; Lucic, M. Revisiting the calibration of modern neural networks. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2021, 34, 15682–15694. [Google Scholar]
  26. Dong, S.; Wang, P.; Abbas, K. A survey on deep learning and its applications. Comput. Sci. Rev. 2021, 40, 100379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Janiesch, C.; Zschech, P.; Heinrich, K. Machine learning and deep learning. Electron. Mark. 2021, 31, 685–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bartlett, P.L.; Montanari, A.; Rakhlin, A. Deep learning: A statistical viewpoint. Acta Numer. 2021, 30, 87–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kerrigan, G.; Smyth, P.; Steyvers, M. Combining human predictions with model probabilities via confusion matrices and calibration. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2021, 34, 4421–4434. [Google Scholar]
  30. Naik, N.; Hameed, B.M.Z.; Shetty, D.K.; Swain, D.; Shah, M.; Paul, R.; Aggarwal, K.; Ibrahim, S.; Patil, V.; Smriti, K.; et al. Legal and Ethical Consideration in Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: Who Takes Responsibility? Front. Surg. 2022, 9, 862322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Naik, N.; Rallapalli, Y.; Krishna, M.; Vellara, A.S.; Shetty, D.K.; Patil, V.; Hameed, B.Z.; Paul, R.; Prabhu, N.; Rai, B.P.; et al. Demystifying the Advancements of Big Data Analytics in Medical Diagnosis: An Overview. Eng. Sci. 2022, 19, 42–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hameed, M.M.; AlOmar, M.K.; Khaleel, F.; Al–Ansari, N. An Extra Tree Regression Model for Discharge Coefficient Prediction: Novel, Practical Applications in the Hydraulic Sector and Future Research Directions. Math. Probl. Eng. 2021, 2021, 7001710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Memon, N.; Patel, S.B.; Patel, D.P. Comparative analysis of artificial neural network and XGBoost algorithm for PolSAR image classification. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Pattern Recognition and Machine Intelligence 2019, Tezpur, India, 17–20 December 2019; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany; pp. 452–460. [Google Scholar]
  34. Rapp, M. BOOMER—An algorithm for learning gradient boosted multi–label classification rules. Softw. Impacts 2021, 10, 100137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sugiharti, E.; Arifudin, R.; Wiyanti, D.T.; Susilo, A.B. Integration of convolutional neural network and extreme gradient boosting for breast cancer detection. Bull. Electr. Eng. Inform. 2022, 11, 803–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Antwarg, L.; Miller, R.M.; Shapira, B.; Rokach, L. Explaining anomalies detected by autoencoders using Shapley Additive Explanations. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 186, 115736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chadaga, K.; Prabhu, S.; Umakanth, S.; Bhat, K.; Sampathila, N.; Chadaga, R. COVID–19 Mortality Prediction among Patients using Epidemiological parameters: An Ensemble Machine Learning Approach. Eng. Sci. 2021, 16, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Maber, M.; Liversidge, H.; Hector, M. Accuracy of age estimation of radiographic methods using developing teeth. Forensic Sci. Int. 2006, 159, S68–S73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Logan, W.H.; Kronfeld, R. Development of the human jaws and surrounding structures from birth to the age of fifteen years. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 1933, 20, 379–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Boonpitaksathit, T.; Hunt, N.; Roberts, G.J.; Petrie, A.; Lucas, V.S. Dental age assessment of adolescents and emerging adults in United Kingdom Caucasians using censored data for stage H of third molar roots. Eur. J. Orthod. 2010, 33, 503–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gunst, K.; Mesotten, K.; Carbonez, A.; Willems, G. Third molar root development in relation to chronological age: A large sample sized retrospective study. Forensic Sci. Int. 2003, 136, 52–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mohammed, R.B. Accuracy of Four Dental Age Estimation Methods in Southern Indian Children. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2015, 9, HC01–HC08. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Willmot, S.E.; Hector, M.P.; Liversidge, H.M. Accuracy of estimating age from eruption levels of mandibular teeth. Dent. Anthr. J. 2018, 26, 56–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mesotten, K.; Gunst, K.; Carbonez, A.; Willems, G. Dental age estimation and third molars: A preliminary study. Forensic Sci. Int. 2002, 129, 110–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jimaging 09 00033 g001 550
Figure 1. Measurement of mesial and distal root lengths of left mandibular second and third molars in (a) 12–years–old female patient and (b) 20–years–old male patient.
Figure 1. Measurement of mesial and distal root lengths of left mandibular second and third molars in (a) 12–years–old female patient and (b) 20–years–old male patient.
Jimaging 09 00033 g001
Jimaging 09 00033 g002 550
Figure 2. Block diagram illustrating the various steps involved in building a Deep Learning–based tool for automated analysis and classification of data into the specified categories.
Figure 2. Block diagram illustrating the various steps involved in building a Deep Learning–based tool for automated analysis and classification of data into the specified categories.
Jimaging 09 00033 g002
Jimaging 09 00033 g003 550
Figure 3. Heatmap representation of Pearson correlation among age groups and root lengths.
Figure 3. Heatmap representation of Pearson correlation among age groups and root lengths.
Jimaging 09 00033 g003
Jimaging 09 00033 g004 550
Figure 4. Accuracy plot of training and validation of Deep Learning Neural network model.
Figure 4. Accuracy plot of training and validation of Deep Learning Neural network model.
Jimaging 09 00033 g004
Jimaging 09 00033 g005 550
Figure 5. Confusion matrix from the best predictive model: (A) 2–Class prediction, (B) 3–Class prediction SVM, and (C) Random Forest 5–Class prediction.
Figure 5. Confusion matrix from the best predictive model: (A) 2–Class prediction, (B) 3–Class prediction SVM, and (C) Random Forest 5–Class prediction.
Jimaging 09 00033 g005
Jimaging 09 00033 g006 550
Figure 6. The diagnostic evaluation of the model for 2–Class prediction of (A) ROC curve for the LR, SVM, and RF, and (B) ROC curve for the DL algorithm.
Figure 6. The diagnostic evaluation of the model for 2–Class prediction of (A) ROC curve for the LR, SVM, and RF, and (B) ROC curve for the DL algorithm.
Jimaging 09 00033 g006
Jimaging 09 00033 g007 550
Figure 7. SHAP plots showing feature importance in descending order by bee swarm plot: (A) 2–Class classification (SVM): best result; (B) 2–Class classification (Random Forest): second best result; (C) 3–Class classification (SVM): best result; and (D) 2–Class classification (Deep Learning).
Figure 7. SHAP plots showing feature importance in descending order by bee swarm plot: (A) 2–Class classification (SVM): best result; (B) 2–Class classification (Random Forest): second best result; (C) 3–Class classification (SVM): best result; and (D) 2–Class classification (Deep Learning).
Jimaging 09 00033 g007
Jimaging 09 00033 g008 550
Figure 8. Plot of prediction versus true value: (A) Random Forest Regressor and (B) Extra Tree Regressor.
Figure 8. Plot of prediction versus true value: (A) Random Forest Regressor and (B) Extra Tree Regressor.
Jimaging 09 00033 g008
Table
Table 1. Classification performance analysis—LDA feature extractor.
Table 1. Classification performance analysis—LDA feature extractor.
Class DivisionClassifierAccuracyAUCRecallPrecision
2–ClassSVM86.80.820.930.89
RF86.00.830.900.90
Logistic Regression84.80.810.900.88
3–ClassSVM66.0–0.580.50
RF60.00.690.67
Logistic Regression60.40.690.62
5–ClassSVM44.0–0.500.50
RF42.40.420.43
Logistic Regression40.40.510.46
LDA: Linear Discriminant Analysis; SVM: Support Vector Machine; AUC: Area under the ROC curve; RF: Random Forest.
Table
Table 2. Classification performance analysis—no feature extractor.
Table 2. Classification performance analysis—no feature extractor.
Class DivisionClassifierAccuracyAUCRecallPrecision
2–ClassSVM86.40.820.930.88
RF85.60.800.930.87
Logistic Regression84.00.790.900.87
3–ClassSVM66.0–0.580.50
RF60.00.600.65
Logistic Regression60.40.670.62
5–ClassSVM42.8–0.500.49
RF47.60.470.44
Logistic Regression40.40.470.44
SVM: Support Vector Machine; AUC: Area under the ROC curve; RF: Random Forest.
Table
Table 3. Classification performance analysis—Deep Learning.
Table 3. Classification performance analysis—Deep Learning.
Class DivisionModelAccuracyAUCRecallPrecision
2–ClassClassification using Deep Learning87.20.880.960.87
AUC: Area under the ROC curve.
Table
Table 4. R square value for regressors.
Table 4. R square value for regressors.
RegressorR Square ValueMAERMSE
Random Forest Regressor0.581.832.40
Extra Tree Regressor0.581.812.38
XGBoost Regressor0.571.832.41
Gradient Boosting Regressor0.571.852.41
XGBoost: extreme gradient boosting.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Patil, V.; Saxena, J.; Vineetha, R.; Paul, R.; Shetty, D.K.; Sharma, S.; Smriti, K.; Singhal, D.K.; Naik, N. Age Assessment through Root Lengths of Mandibular Second and Third Permanent Molars Using Machine Learning and Artificial Neural Networks. J. Imaging 2023, 9, 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging9020033

AMA Style

Patil V, Saxena J, Vineetha R, Paul R, Shetty DK, Sharma S, Smriti K, Singhal DK, Naik N. Age Assessment through Root Lengths of Mandibular Second and Third Permanent Molars Using Machine Learning and Artificial Neural Networks. Journal of Imaging. 2023; 9(2):33. https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging9020033

Chicago/Turabian Style

Patil, Vathsala, Janhavi Saxena, Ravindranath Vineetha, Rahul Paul, Dasharathraj K. Shetty, Sonali Sharma, Komal Smriti, Deepak Kumar Singhal, and Nithesh Naik. 2023. "Age Assessment through Root Lengths of Mandibular Second and Third Permanent Molars Using Machine Learning and Artificial Neural Networks" Journal of Imaging 9, no. 2: 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging9020033

APA Style

Patil, V., Saxena, J., Vineetha, R., Paul, R., Shetty, D. K., Sharma, S., Smriti, K., Singhal, D. K., & Naik, N. (2023). Age Assessment through Root Lengths of Mandibular Second and Third Permanent Molars Using Machine Learning and Artificial Neural Networks. Journal of Imaging, 9(2), 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging9020033

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop