Odontometric analysis of permanent maxillary first molar in gender determination

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Dec 1, 2016
https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-1475.195120
Download
Statistic

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...
Volume 8, Issue 3, September-December 2016

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Ayesha Shireen
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Al-Farabi College, Jeddah
Syeda Ara
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Al-Badar Rural Dental College And Hospital, Gulbarga, Karnataka

Abstract

Aims: This study was conducted to assess the sex determination potential from mesiodistal (MD) and buccolingual (BL) dimensions of permanent maxillary first molar. Subjects and Methods: The study was conducted in the Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Al-Badar Rural Dental College and Hospital, Gulbarga, Karnataka, on 600 subjects (300 male and 300 female), aged 17–25 years. The subjects were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria set forth for the study. After obtaining informed consent, the intraoral measurements of MD and BL dimensions on casts of the first maxillary molars were taken using digital vernier caliper with resolution of 0.01 mm. Statistical Analysis Used: The data obtained were subjected to statistical analysis using paired and unpaired t-test to compare MD and BL dimensions between males and females. P ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The mean MD width of the first maxillary molar was 10.60 ± 0.6644 mm (right) and 10.60 ± 0.6644 mm (left) in males and 10.40 ± 0.6255 mm (right) and 10.40 ± 0.6255 mm (left) in females. The mean BL width of the first maxillary molar was 11.60 ± 1.2227 mm (right) and 11.60 ± 1.2227 mm (left) in males and 11.20 ± 0.8440 mm (right) and 11.20 ± 0.8440 mm (left) in females. The differences between males and females in MD and BL dimensions measured were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Right and left MD dimensions exhibited sexual dimorphism of 1.92% and right and left BL dimensions exhibited sexual dimorphism of 3.57%. Conclusions: The MD and BL dimensions of the maxillary first molars may be used as an aid in sex discrimination.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Ayesha Shireen, & Syeda Ara. (2016). Odontometric analysis of permanent maxillary first molar in gender determination. Journal of Forensic Dental Sciences, 8(3), 145–149. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-1475.195120
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Lund H, Mörnstad H. Gender determination by odontometrics in a Swedish population. J Forensic Odontostomatol 1999;17:30-4.
  2. Reddy VM, Saxena S, Bansal P. Mandibular canine index as a sex determinant: A study on the population of western Uttar Pradesh. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol 2008;12:56‑9.
  3. Franklin CA. Modi’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology. 21st ed. Bombay, India: N.M. Tripathi Pvt. Ltd.; 1988. 4. Fleming WC. Localisation of pyorrheal involvement. Dent Cosmos 1926;68:538‑41.
  4. Miller SC, Seider BB. Relative alveoclastic experiences of various teeth. J Dent Res 1942;21:365‑71.
  5. Rai B, Narula SC, Madan M, Dhattarwal SK. Evidence of tooth in sex. Medico Legal Update 2004;4:119‑26.
  6. Krogh HW. Permanent tooth mortality: A clinical study of causes of loss. J Am Dent Assoc 1958;57:670‑5.
  7. McDonald RE, Avery DR. Dentistry for child and adolescent. Eruption of teeth: Local, systemic and congenital factors that influences the process. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby; 2004. p. 175‑202.
  8. StroudJL, BuschangPH, GoazPW. Sexual dimorphism in mesiodistal dentin and enamel thickness. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1994;23:169‑71.
  9. Sonika V, Harshaminder K, Madhushankari GS, Sri Kennath JA. Sexual dimorphism in the permanent maxillary first molar: A study of the Haryana population (India). J Forensic Odontostomatol 2011;29:37-43.
  10. PerzigianAJ. The dentition of the Indian Knoll skeletal population: Odontometrics and cusp number. Am J Phys Anthropol 1976;44:113‑21.
  11. Ghose LJ, Baghdady VS. Analysis of the Iraqi dentition: Mesiodistal crown diameters of permanent teeth. J Dent Res 1979;58:1047-54.
  12. Hattab FN, al‑Khateeb S, Sultan I. Mesiodistal crown diameters of permanent teeth in Jordanians. Arch Oral Biol 1996;41:641‑5.
  13. Rai B, Dhattarwal SK, Anand SC. Sex determination from tooth. Medico Legal Update 2008;8:3-5.
  14. GhodosiA, Mosharraf R, Nia FF. Sexual variation in bucco-lingual dimensions in Iranian dentition. Int J Dent Anthropol 2008;12:1-7.
  15. Vodanovic M, Demo Z, Njemirovskij V, Keros J, Brkic H. Odontometrics: A useful method for sex determination in an archaeological skeletal population? J Archaeol Sci 2007;34:905‑13.
  16. Garn SM, Lewis AB, Kerewsky RS. Buccolingual size asymmetry and its developmental meaning. Angle Orthod 1967;37:186‑93.
  17. Preeti N, Balaji Rao B, Anniger RG. A study of tooth size, symmetry and sexual dimorphism. JFMT 1999;16:10‑3.
  18. Rai B, Jain R, Duhan J, Dutta S, Dhattarwal S.Importance of maxillary first molar for sex determination. Internet J Dent Sci 2007;4:2.
  19. Garn SM, Lewis AB, Kerewsky RS. Sexual dimorphism in the buccolingual tooth diameter. J Dent Res 1966;45:1819.
  20. Iscan MY, Kedici PS. Sexual variation in bucco-lingual dimensions in Turkish dentition. Forensic Sci Int 2003;137:160‑4.
  21. Potter RH. Univariate versus multivariate differences in tooth size according to sex. J Dent Res 1972;51:716‑22.
  22. Eboh DEO. A dimorphic study of maxillary first molar crown dimensions of Urhobos in Abraka, South-Southern Nigeria. J Morphol Sci 2012;29:96‑100.