## 4 Discussion
Further, our study had lesser error rates than the Indian study [30]. Compared to previous work using computed tomography, we found a compromised co-efficient of determination R\({}^{2}\), necessitating us to cautiously utilize teeth as a tool of age determinant in the present population [3,29,43]. Furthermore, as much of the previous evidence either utilized 2D age estimation or CBCT analysis with [PERSON]'s method, higher R\({}^{2}\) values could have been declared. It is noteworthy that although a negative correlation coefficient is reported in the present study, the low R\({}^{2}\) value and error rates tell us how far a tooth under study can be relied on as an age predictor. Hence, the literature supporting a specific tooth as an age estimator that lacked reporting R\({}^{2}\) and SER (Standard Error Rates) estimation should be cautiously considered. In our study, incisors precisely estimated the age using regression analysis in both planes, whereas in canines, the axial view was a better predictor than sagittal sections. [PERSON] et al., in their work on the Iranian population using CBCT imaging, also reported maxillary incisors to be a better age predictor along with a weak correlation of canines in the sagittal plane [43]. This clearly demonstrated that tooth type and their planes were determinants of age estimation. Therefore, the authors recommend studies with population-specific three-dimensional age estimation to analyze the co-efficient of age determination and their error rates. The present findings of this study open newer vistas for age estimation. Nonetheless, most of the available evidence supports the use of specific teeth as a reliable indicator for age estimation using correlation coefficient values. Estimating R\({}^{2}\) (co-efficient of determination) and SE is essential to accurately assess their strength of association in different planes, and using CBCT in specific populations can be useful. The regression-based method of age prediction in maxillary incisors evaluated an individual's chronological age within the acceptable range set in the field of forensic science, i.e., SE of ten years [21]. However, a more accurate prediction with an error range of less than five years can justify the applicability of this technique. There were some limitations in our study. Firstly, we did not restrict this technique to teeth in one quadrant of the mouth. Secondly, as different methods (for instance, many studies assessed pulp-tooth volume, and many did not report R\({}^{2}\)) and radiographic techniques were used in age estimation, we had a limited number of articles to compare and validate. In terms of methodology, convenience sampling was employed, which could be one of the methodological limitations. Finally, data regarding systemic diseases and history of orthodontics treatment could not be elucidated in these patients that could have an influence on the present results. Robust age estimation techniques are important for any population. This will be useful in forensic settings, to solve medico-legal issues, and in any future disaster management. In order to validate the use of CBCT for dental age estimation, we recommend:  
* Future research studies with larger sample sizes regionally on indigenous populations should be targeted for generalization. * Different CBCT scanners and resolutions of the various image sections, planes, and tooth types should be warranted. * As forensic experts need precise validation, in addition to correlation coefficient, strength of association and error rates should be computed when assessing particular teeth as an age estimator in specific populations.