International Journal of Legal Medicine

, Volume 132, Issue 4, pp 1117–1124 | Cite as

Toward the adoption of cementochronology in forensic context

  • T. Colard
  • B. Bertrand
  • S. Naji
  • Y. Delannoy
  • A. Bécart
Original Article


Because acellular dental cementum is considered to be formed continually throughout life and to not undergo remodeling processes, cementochronology is considered to be a method with the potential for directly assessing chronological age. Considering that most previous studies on humans have assumed the superior performance of this method, it is surprising that this technique is not more widely adopted in anthropology. To understand this controversy, we highlight that there is no standardized procedure for sample preparation. The numerous technical approaches that exist impact the reliability of the method, and the recent creation of an international work group (Cementochronology Research Program) demonstrates the need for researchers to share their experience to overcome these obstacles. This paper aims to address this paradox by debating the aspects that contribute to the limited use of this method and by illustrating its potential through an application on forensic cases. A protocol, which was recently certified according to the ISO-9001, was applied to nine anthropological cases from the Forensic Medicine Institute of Lille (northern France) and compared with routine osteological and dental methods. The results show that traditional methods matched the known age due to the wide extent of their range, while the accuracy and precision of cementochronological estimates was also notable. This paper establishes that cementochronology may serve as a particularly important tool for age estimation for forensic anthropologists and should, at least, be used in addition to other methods.


Forensic anthropology Cementochronology Age-at-death estimation Dental cementum 



The authors thank L. Bernard and P. Demolon of the Direction de l’Archéologie de la Communauté d’Agglomération du Douaisis (Douai, France) who granted access to the “Physical Analysis and Materials Characterization Laboratory.” We would also like to thank M. Lemoine for his help. The authors thank the editor and the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments, which helped us to improve the manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Spinage CA (1973) A review of the age determination of mammals by means of teeth, with special reference to Africa. East Afr Wildl J 11:165–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grue H, Jensen B (1979) Review of the formation of incremental lines in tooth cementum of terrestrial mammals. Dan Rev Game Biol 11:1–48Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nanci A (2012) Ten Cate’s oral histology: development, structure and function. MosbyGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Magitot ME (1878) Treatise on dental caries. Houghton, Osgood & Co, BostonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Black GV (1887) A study of the histological characters of the periosteum and peridental membrane. General Books, LLCGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zander HA, Hürzeler B (1958) Continuous cementum apposition. J Dent Res 37:1035–1044CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yamamoto T, Li M, Liu Z, Guo Y, Hasegawa T, Masuki H, Suzuki R, Amizuka N (2010) Histological review of the human cellular cementum with special reference to an alternating lamellar pattern. Odontol Soc Nippon Dent Univ 98:102–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miller CF, Dove SB, Cottone JA (1988) Failure of use of cemental annulations in teeth to determine the age of humans. J Forensic Sci 33:137–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Geusa G, Bondioli, L, Capucci E, Cipriano A, Grupe G, Savorè C, Macchiareli, R (1999) Dental cementum annulations and age at death estimates. In: Bondioli L, Macchiarelli R (eds) Osteodental biology of the people of Portus Romae (Necropolis of Isola Sacra, 2nd-3rd Cent. AD), Digital Archives of Human Paleobiology. RomaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wittwer-Backofen U, Buckberry J, Czarnetzki A, Doppler S, Grupe G, Hotz G, Kemkes A, Larsen CS, Prince D et al (2008) Basics in paleodemography: a comparison of age indicators applied to the early medieval skeletal sample of Lauchheim. Am J Phys Anthropol 137:384–396CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wittwer-Backofen U, Gampe J, Vaupel JW (2004) Tooth cementum annulation for age estimation: results from a large known-age validation study. Am J Phys Anthropol 123:119–129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meinl A, Huber CD, Tangl S, Gruber GM, Teschler-Nicola M, Watzek G (2008) Comparison of the validity of three dental methods for the estimation of age at death. Forensic Sci Int 178:96–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garvin HM, Passalacqua NV (2012) Current practices by forensic anthropologists in adult skeletal age estimation. J Forensic Sci 57:427–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Renz H, Radlanski RJ (2006) Incremental lines in root cementum of human teeth—a reliable age marker? Homo - J Comp Hum Biol 57:29–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cool SM, Forwood MR, Campbell P, Bennett MB (2002) Comparisons between bone and cementum compositions and the possible basis for their layered appearances. Bone 30:386–392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grosskopf B, McGlynn G (2011) Age diagnosis based on incremental lines in dental cementum: a critical reflection. Anthropol Anz 68:275–289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Charles DK, Condon K, Cheverud JM, Buikstra JE (1986) Cementum annulation and age determination in Homo sapiens. I. Tooth variability and observer error. Am J Phys Anthropol 71:311–320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stott GG, Sis RF, Levy BM (1982) Cemental annulation as an age criterion in forensic dentistry. J Dent Res 61:814–817CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wedel VL (2007) Determination of season at death using dental cementum increment analysis. J Forensic Sci 52:1334–1337PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stutz AJ (2002) Polarizing microscopy identification of chemical diagenesis in archaeological cementum. J Archaeol Sci 29:1327–1347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roksandic M, Vlak D, Schillaci MA, Voicu D (2009) Technical note: applicability of tooth cementum annulation to an archaeological population. Am J Phys Anthropol 140:583–588CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Robbins Schug G, Brandt ET, Lukacs JR (2012) Cementum annulations, age estimation, and demographic dynamics in Mid-Holocene foragers of North India. Homo - J Comp Hum Biol 63:94–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bertrand B (2013) Procedure ISO-9001: cementochronologie, référence: MOP-Dap-04 Indice a, Communauté d’Agglomération du Douaisis.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brooks ST, Suchey JM (1990) Skeletal age determination based on the os pubis: a comparison of the Acsadi-Nemeskeri and Suchey-Brooks methods. Hum Evol 5:227–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Suchey JM, Katz D (1998) Applications of pubic age determination in a forensic setting. In: Reichs K (ed) Forensic osteology: advances in the identification of human remains. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL, pp 204–236Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lovejoy CO, Meindl RS, Pryzbeck TR, Mensforth RP (1985) Chronological metamorphosis of the auricular surface of the ilium: a new method for the determination of adult skeletal age at death. Am J Phys Anthropol 68(1):15–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Buckberry JL, Chamberlain AT (2002) Age estimation from the auricular surface of the ilium: a revised method. Am J Phys Anthropol 119:231–239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kunos CA, Simpson SW, Russell KF, Hershkovitz I (1999) First rib metamorphosis: its possible utility for human age-at-death estimation. Am J Phys Anthropol 110:303–323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Iscan MY, Loth SR, Wright RK (1984) Age estimation from the rib by phase analysis: white males. J Forensic Sci 29(4):1094–1104PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Iscan MY, Loth SR, Wright RK (1985) Age estimation from the rib by phase analysis: white females. J Forensic Sci 30(3):853–863PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Krogman WM, Iscan MY (1986) The human skeleton in forensic medicine. Thomas, SpringfieldGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Masset C (1989) Age estimation on the basis of the cranial sutures. In: Iscan MY (ed) Age markers in the human skeletons. Charles C. T, Springfield, pp 71–103Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lamendin H, Baccino E, Humbert JF, Tavernier JC, Nossintchouk RM (1992) A simple technique for age estimation in adult corpses: the two criteria dental method. J Forensic Sci 37:1373–1379CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Prince DA, Ubelaker DH (2002) Application of lamendin’s adult dental aging technique to a diverse skeletal sample. J Forensic Sci 47:107–116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Alqahtani SJ, Hector MP, Liversidge HM (2010) Brief communication: the London atlas of human tooth development and eruption. Am J Phys Anthropol 142:481–490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Naji S, Colard T, Blondiaux J et al (2014) Cementochronology, to cut or not to cut? Int J Paleopathol. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpp.2014.05.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dias PE, Beain TL, Melani RF (2010) Age estimation from dental cementum incremental lines and periodontal disease. J Forensic Odontostomatol 28:13–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cunha E, Baccino E, Martrille L, Ramsthaler F, Prieto J, Schuliar Y, Lynnerup N, Cattaneo C (2009) The problem of aging human remains and living individuals: a review. Forensic Sci Int 193(1–3):1–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Meinl A, Huber CD, Tangl S et al (2008) Comparison of the validity of three dental methods for the estimation of age at death. Forensic Sci Int 178:96–105. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2008.02.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Colard
    • 1
  • B. Bertrand
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. Naji
    • 3
  • Y. Delannoy
    • 1
  • A. Bécart
    • 1
  1. 1.Unité de Taphonomie Médico-Légale, Institut de Médecine LégaleUniversité de Lille 2LilleFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire d’Anthropologie, Direction de l’ArchéologieCommunauté d’Agglomération du DouaisisDouaiFrance
  3. 3.CNRS-PACEA-UMR 5199, Université de BordeauxBordeauxFrance

Personalised recommendations