## 3 Results  
The total of 100 CBCT images included 62 male and 38 female patients. The mean age and PTR of the sampled teeth in the axial and sagittal section are mentioned in Table 1. Gender-wise PTR was compared in both the planes and shown in Table 2; the \(t\)-test revealed a non-significant difference in both the incisors and canines. The incisors' overall mean PTR (0.08) was higher than the canines' (0.06) in the axial plane (\(p<0.001\)). Table 3 depicts the correlation coefficient between age and PTR based on teeth and section viewed. The negative '\(\tau\)' value was demonstrated since the pulp-tooth area ratio of incisors and canine teeth decreased as the age increased. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Incisors** & **Canines** & \(p\) **Value** \\ \hline Age & 39.53 \(\pm\) 10.99 & 39.53 \(\pm\) 10.99 & \\ \hline PAS & 14.64 \(\pm\) 3.40 & 19.55 \(\pm\) 22.58 & \\ \hline TAS & 115.15 \(\pm\)12.90 & 133.65 \(\pm\) 22.58 & \\ \hline
**PTRS** & 0.12 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.14 \(\pm\) 0.02 & \(p<0.001\)** \\ \hline PAA & 2.52 \(\pm\) 0.88 & 2.40 \(\pm\) 0.84 & \\ \hline TAA & 32.13 \(\pm\) 4.42 & 38.27 \(\pm\) 6.36 & \\ \hline
**PTRA** & 0.08 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.06 \(\pm\) 0.02 & \(p<0.001\)** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* PAS—Pulpal area in sagittal plane, TAS—tooth area in sagittal plane, PTRS—pul to tooth area in sagittal plane, PAA—pulpal area in axial plane, TAA—tooth area in axial plane, PTRA—pul to tooth area in axial plane; **—highly significant.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptive statistics of the study parameters. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Teeth** & **Plane** & **Females (n = 38)** & **Males (n = 62)** & \(p\) **Value** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Incisors**} & PTRS & 0.12 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.13 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.18, NS \\ \cline{2-5}  & PTRA & 0.07 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.08 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.20, NS \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Canines**} & PTRS & 0.15 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.14 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.20, NS \\ \cline{2-5}  & PTRA & 0.06 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.06 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.65, NS \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* NS—non-significant.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Gender-wise comparison of PTR in two planes. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Tooth**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Plane**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Overall**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Male**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Female**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **r** & \(p\) & **r** & \(p\) & **r** & \(p\) \\ \hline Incisor & PTRS & \(-\)0.42 & 0.001 ** & \(-\)0.42 & 0.001 ** & \(-\)0.44 & 0.005 * \\ \hline  & PTRA & \(-\)0.47 & 0.001 ** & \(-\)0.41 & 0.001 ** & \(-\)0.59 & 0.001 ** \\ \hline Canine & PTRS & \(-\)0.18 & 0.09, NS & \(-\)0.08 & 0.58, NS & \(-\)0.32 & 0.07, NS \\ \hline  & PTRA & \(-\)0.30 & 0.004 * & \(-\)0.37 & 0.005 * & \(-\)0.22 & 0.22, NS \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* r—correlation coefficient, *—significant, **–highly Significant, NS—non-significant.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Correlation coefficient between chronological age and PTR. A statistically significant correlation between PTR and age was demonstrated for all teeth examined except for canine in sagittal view. Among the teeth examined in this study comparatively strongest (low negative) inverse correlation was noted between age and incisor axial view (0.47), while the negligible correlation was reported in the canine's sagittal plane (0.18). Gender-wise correlation demonstrated both males and females had higher negative 'r' values for incisors than canines. Although a statistically significant correlation (\(p<0.05\)) was observed for incisor teeth in either gender, the sagittal sections of males had higher r values, i.e., r = males \(-0.42\) versus females \(-0.44\), whereas in the axial view, females reported higher values, i.e., r = males \(-0.41\) versus females \(-0.59\). The canine tooth was reported as a weak predictor for age estimation in the sagittal plane. However, the axial view demonstrated a correlation for the male gender (\(p=0.005\)).