Prosthetic restorations, dental root fillings and periodontal bone resorptions as a forensic-odontologic aid for determining the age above 18 years: A radiographic study of orthopantomograms from a group of teenagers and yount adults

The human teeth are a valuable source of information concerning identification and age calculation in forensic sciences. Dental treatment often causes permanent alteration of the teeth, which is visible on radiographs. The correlation of prosthetic restorations, root canal fillings and periodontal bone loss with chronological age has not yet been used for determining the completed 18th year of life in teenagers and young adults, e. g. for legal and anthropological purposes. The aim of this study was to determine whether the evaluation of such findings on radiographs correlates with the chronological age in teenagers and young adults. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The dental X-rays (orthopantomogram, OPG) of 1053 outpatients (age: 14 to 24 years) were avaluated. The values "prosthetically restored", "filled dental root", or "periodontal bone loss" were recorded for each tooth present. The data were then evaluated using statistical tools. RESULTS: The correlation between the number of prosthetically restored teeth and the chronological age is high. The positive predictive value of determining an age of at least 18 years proved to be very high. However, these findings are rarely present in this age group. The number of endodontically treated teeth correlated less exactly with age. On the other hand, the determination of periodontal bone loss gave reasonable positive predictive values for the threshold value "chronological age of 18 years or more". DISCUSSION: This study provides for the first time predictive values for the estimation whether a person is 18 years of age, based on the evaluation of teeth with prosthetic restorations, root canal fillings or periodontal bone loss on OPGs only. Whereas the number of patients with such findings is generally low in this age group, some of the positive findings can be used for age estimation as an adjunct to other sources of age calculation. The sole application of these criteria is not recommended, as sanitary conditions of the teeth depend on both social and individual circumstances. Therefore, the calculated values also reflect the culture of the sample studied. Finally, they are time-dependent and have to be compared to data from other populations. These results have some bearing on the field of forensic odontology.     

Noncoercive sexual contact with similarly aged individuals: what is the impact?

A community sample of 610 adults were grouped into those who reported no sexual abuse experience, others who reported noncoercive sexual contact with an individual that was at most 4 years older, and those who reported more severe sexual abuse. The first two groups did not differ from each other on current social support, trauma-specific symptomatology, and somatic complaints whereas the more severe sexual abuse group reported more problems on these dimensions. Further analyses suggested that of the two variables, coercion was more closely associated with problematic outcome than was the existence of an age difference.     

The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: A comprehensive meta-analysis

The article reports a meta-analysis on controlled outcome evaluations of sexual offender treatment. From 2,039 documents published in five languages, 69 studies containing 80 independent comparisons between treated and untreated offenders fulfilled stepwise eligibility criteria (total N = 22,181). Despite a wide range of positive and negative effect sizes, the majority confirmed the benefits of treatment. Treated offenders showed 6 percentage points or 37% less sexual recidivism than controls. Effects for violent and general recidivism were in a similar range. Organic treatments (surgical castration and hormonal medication) showed larger effects than psychosocial interventions. However, this difference was partially confounded with methodological and offender variables. Among psychological programs, cognitive–behavioral approaches revealed the most robust effect. Nonbehavioral treatments did not demonstrate a significant impact. There was no outcome difference between randomized and other designs, however, group equivalence was associated with slightly larger effects. Various other moderators had a stronger impact on effect size (e.g., small sample size, quality of outcome reporting, program completion vs. dropout, age homogeneity, outpatient treatment, and authors’ affiliation with the program). More differentiated, high-quality evaluations are needed to clarify: What works for whom under which circumstances?