↓ Skip to main content

The circles of life: age at death estimation in burnt teeth through tooth cementum annulations

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Legal Medicine, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
The circles of life: age at death estimation in burnt teeth through tooth cementum annulations
Published in
International Journal of Legal Medicine, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00414-016-1432-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Inês Oliveira-Santos, Márcia Gouveia, Eugénia Cunha, David Gonçalves

Abstract

Age at death estimation in burnt human remains is problematic due to the severe heat-induced modifications that may affect the skeleton after a burning event. The objective of this paper was to assess if cementochronology, which focuses on the cementum incremental lines, is a reliable method of age estimation in burnt remains. Besides the classical approach based on the counting of incremental lines, another approach based on the extrapolation of incremental lines taking into account the cement layer thickness and the incremental line thickness was investigated. A comparison of the performance of the two techniques was carried out on a sample of 60 identified monoradicular teeth that were recently extracted at dentist offices and then experimentally burnt at two maximum temperatures (400 and 900 °C). Micrographs of cross-sections of the roots were taken via an optical microscope with magnification of ×100, ×200 and ×400. Incremental line counting and measurements were carried out with the ImageJ software. Age estimation based on incremental line counting in burnt teeth had no significant correlation with chronological age (p = 0.244 to 0.914) and led to large absolute mean errors (19 to 21 years). In contrast, age estimation based on the extrapolation approach showed a significant correlation with known age (p = 0.449 to 0.484). In addition, the mean absolute error of the latter was much smaller (10 to 14 years). The reason behind this discrepancy is the heat-induced dimensional changes of incremental lines that affect their visibility and individualization thus complicating line counting. Our results indicated that incremental lines extrapolation is successful at solving this problem and that the resulting age estimation is much more reliable.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 21%
Student > Postgraduate 4 17%
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Unspecified 2 8%
Other 6 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 21%
Unspecified 4 17%
Arts and Humanities 3 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Other 4 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 September 2016.
All research outputs
#7,639,778
of 12,226,511 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#587
of 1,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,275
of 261,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#14
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,226,511 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,049 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 261,333 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.