Mishra R.Mourya R.Srivastava V.K.Pandey S.K.Kumar N.P.G.2025-01-132025-01-1320249710973https://dl.bhu.ac.in/ir/handle/123456789/1308In order to create new, simplified tables (Willems I method) for males and females in the Belgian Caucasian population, Willems G et al. (2001) reexamined Demirjian's technique. With these tables, dental age can be represented directly in years without the need for additional conversion tables. Using the prior data and a new study group, Willems G et al. (2010) created a common table for males and females to overcome cases of unknown gender and created a non-gender-specific method (Willems II method) that was not gender-specific. This study aims to evaluate the Willems I and Willems II methods for age estimation in a sample of the Varanasi region population. In this cross-sectional study, 432 samples (237 boys and 195 girls of age range 3�16 years) from the population of Varanasi region were evaluated to validate the Willems I and Willems II age estimation methods. A paired t-test was applied to determine the statistical significance between estimated dental age and chronological age. The Willems I method underestimated the dental age in boys by-0.27 � 0.80 years and in girls by-0.60 � 0.95 years. The Willems II method also underestimated the age by-0.57 � 0.86 years in boys and-0.38 � 0.93 years in girls. Pearson correlation revealed a strong positive association in both methods. The Willems I and Willems II methods are not exactly applicable, but the Willems I method is more relatable to the actual age of the boys sample and the Willems II method for the girls sample. � 2024, Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine. All rights reserved.enAge estimationDental ageTooth DevelopmentWillems I methodWillems II methodArticle10.48165/jiafm.2024.46.2.13