Case Report
Austin J Forensic Sci Criminol. 2015;2(1): 1012.
The Use of Odontometric Traits Improves the Chances of Sex Identification in a Contemporary Sicilian Human Population
Andrea Dario Messina*
Dipartimento Scienze e Tecnologie Biologiche, Chimiche E Farmaceutiche, Italy
*Corresponding author: Andrea Dario Messina, Dipartimento Scienze e Tecnologie Biologiche, Chimiche E Farmaceutiche, LabHomo - Laboratory of Anthropologyvia Archirafi 18, 90123 Palermo, Italy
Received: September 10, 2014; Accepted: November 23, 2015; Published: January 02, 2015
Abstract
Determining the sex is one of the most important steps in the procedure to identify the unknown person. Teeth are a potential source of information on sex.
The research is performed on a total of 187 specimens from the contemporary cemetery in Palermo (Sicily). It is acknowledged that the adult hipbone (oscoxae) is by far the best non-population-specific indicator for reliable sex determination of adults. Sex is determined on the basis metric criteria of the pelvic bones as described by Murrail et al, as well as odontometric features. Sexual dimorphism of the odontometric features is tested by the Students’t test method. Determining the sex on the basis of pelvic features is possible in 61.5% of the cases. Combining the pelvic and odontometric features it is possible to determine the sex in 90.9% of the cases. In cases where ante-mortem data on sex are not available it is best to combine a number of different methods in order to raise the level of confidence and the level of success in sex determination. The aim of this study is to offer a chance to increase the diagnosis of sex in the absence of pelvic or cranial data.
Keywords: Sicily; Sex determination; Odontometrics features
Introduction
The sexual difference in the human skeleton has been well studied in many populations [1]. Most scholars agree that sex diagnosis of adult skeletons can be performed easily and with high reliability [2,3]. The hip-bone is the most suitable bone because of its marked sexual dimorphism which results mainly from selective constraints on males and females imposed by locomotion and childbearing [4,5]. The sexual dimorphism of the hip- bone is non-specific for populations, which is not the case for other parts of the skeleton [1].
Teeth are known for being the most resistant mineralised specimens against different agents of destruction [6]. Further, the biological parameters derived from the study of the teeth offer a good support for the research of human biology [7]. Therefore, teeth are very important elements in the identification of skeletal remains, especially in cases when, due to the poor preservation of skeletal remains, the identification is not possible by standard methods.
Sex determination using dental features is primarily based upon the comparison of tooth dimensions in males and females, or upon the comparison of frequencies of non-metric dental traits, like Carabelli’s trait of upper molars, deflecting wrinkle of lower first molars, distal accessory ridge of the upper and lower canines or shoveling of the upper central incisors [8].
Odontometric analysis in human sexual variation had a significant development, in research in fact there are numerous studies in which odontometric characteristics in male and female have been identified [8-12]. These standards can be of use in determining the sex in specific cases: in individual, as well as in groups, forensic cases or archaeological contests [13-15].
The aim of this study is to determine the sex on the basis of metrical variables of pelvis bone [16] from skeletal remains and to integrate the results with odontometric features.
This paper deals with odontometrics as an easy-to-use additional technique to determine the sex in archaeological circumstances without the need to complicate statistical software and techniques. We propose the range of values that can be attributed only to males and only to females.
Material and Methods
Research has been carried out on 187 skeletal remains excavated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries at the contemporary cemetery in Palermo.
Sex determination of the adult skeletons was done using the metric criteria of the pelvic bones as described by Murail et al. [16], on the basis of the 10 hip-bone measurements, according to previous definitions shown in Table 1.
Variables
Brief definition
Reference
PUM (M14)
Acetabulo-symphyseal pubiclength
[39]
SPU
Cotylo-pubicwidth
[40]
DCOX (M1)
Innominate or coxallength
[39]
IIMT(M15.1)
Greater sciaticnotchheight
[39]
ISMM
Ischium post-acetabularlength
[41]
SCOX (M12)
Iliac or coxalbreadth
[39]
SS
Spino-sciaticlength
[40]
SA
Spino-auricularlength
[40]
SIS (M14.1)
Cotylo-sciaticbreadth
[39]
VEAC (M22)
Vertical acetabulardiameter
[39]
Table 1: Pelvic features used for sex determination [16] (“M” refers to the codes of Martin’s measurements in Bräuer 1988 [39]).
Anthropological tooth labelling system was used [17].
Mesiodistal diameter of the tooth crown is taken as the greatest Mesiodistal dimension parallel to the occlusal and facial surface [18]. Buccolingual crown diameter is the greatest distance between the facial and lingual surfaces of the crown, taken at right angles form the area in which the Mesiodistal diameter is taken [18].
To avoid the possibility of incorrect measurements caused by abrasion, only teeth with a low level of abrasion and without exposed dentine were included. In addition, we have excluded all teeth showing enamel hypoplasia that cause defects in growth [18].
The evaluation of robustness derives from the product of multiplication of the mesiodistal and buccolingual diameter of the tooth crown [19].
All measurements were taken from the teeth of both sides of the dental arches using a digital dental caliper (Masel Orthodontics Inc, USA) with an accuracy of 0.01 mm. Measurements were performed on either the left or right side depending on their availability. If both contralateral teeth were available, the average was calculated.
The measurements were performed by one person and all values were rounded to two decimal places. In order to assess the reliability of the measurements, intraobserver error was tested. Same measurements were obtained from 100 randomly selected teeth from the original sample at a different time by the same author to assess intraobserver error. Another observer measured randomly selected teeth in order to test the interobserver error. All statistical analyses were performed using the STATISTICA 7.0 software program. The data were first assessed for normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov one-sample test. Next, a descriptive analysis was performed which calculated the sample size, the mean and the standard deviation for each measurement. This analysis, which characterizes the study population, allowed us to detect possible errors in collection or processing of the database.
Afterwards we analyzed the homogeneity of variance and the differences between mean values of males and females using Student’s t-test because the homogeneity of variance is fulfilled. The level of statistical significance was set at p < 0,05. After the sex of the hipbone was assessed on the basis of pelvic features and after the sex specific ranges of measured dental values were established, the final sex assessment was performed.
Result
The determination of the sex, on the basis of metrical variables of the pelvis has allowed the identification of 115 individuals (61.5%), while in 38.5% of the cases it was not possible, mostly due to the poor preservation of the material. Of the pelvis bone on which the sex was determined (Table 2), the sex ratio is: males (29.4%) and females (32.1%).
N total (%)
N sex- determined:male + female (%)
N sex - undetermined (%)
187 (100.0)
115 (61.5)
72 (38.5)
N male (%)
N female (%)
55 (29.4)
60(32.1)
N= number of individuals.
Table 2: Results of the sex determination using metrical variables of the pelvis bone.
Table 3 shows the t-values of intra and interobeserver error test and there was no statistical difference between the original measurement and the test measurements suggesting consistency between odontometric values.
Intraobserver
Interobserver
Mesiodistal diameter of the tooth crown
Upperjaw
I1
0.73
0.11
I2
0.79
-0.72
C
-0.71
-0.76
P1
0.88
1.19
P2
0.84
1.39
M1
0.84
1.06
M2
1.24
1.99
M3
1.51
1.34
Lower jaw
I1
-0.57
0.51
I2
0.08
0.54
C
0.1
0.55
P1
1.44
0.40
P2
1.7
0.14
M1
1.71
-0.18
M2
0.87
1.00
M3
0.22
0.51
Buccolingual diameter of the tooth crown
Upperjaw
I1
-0.21
-0.22
I2
0.08
-0.17
C
-0.12
-0.12
P1
1.56
0.65
P2
1.49
0.98
M1
1.13
-0.91
M2
2.28
0.68
M3
1.14
0.49
Lower jaw
I1
0.10
-0.03
I2
0.22
0.17
C
0.13
-0.18
P1
2.29
-0.18
P2
2.68
0.19
M1
1.42
-0.27
M2
1.35
0.88
M3
0.17
0.37
None of the t values are significant at the p < 0.05 level. I1: Central Incisor; I2: Lateral Incisor; C: Canine; P1: First Premolar; P2: Second Premolar; M1: First Molar; M2: Second Molar; M3: Third Molar.
Table 3: t value of intra- and interobeserver error test.
The measurement of the mesiodistal diameter was conducted on a total of 908 permanent teeth. There was statistical difference between males and females in the mesiodistal diameter of the crown of the mandibular first premolar (males 6.30 ± 0.95 mm, females 6.00 ± 0.88 mm, p < 0.011), mandibular second premolar (males 6.91 ± 0.54 mm, females 6.54 ± 0.54 mm, p < 0.026) and mandibular first molar (males 9.98 ± 1.35 mm, females 9.51 ± 1.29 mm p < 0.040), Table 4.
Male
Female
p-level
N
A(mm)
SD (mm)
N
A(mm)
SD (mm)
Upperjaw
I1
14
8.28
0.77
19
8.21
0.78
0.853
I2
24
6.21
0.66
23
6.67
0.68
0.415
C
23
7.42
0.73
26
7.21
0.54
0.145
P1
27
6.40
0.85
21
6.34
0.86
0.827
P2
32
6.34
0.8
21
6.17
0.51
0.403
M1
29
9.93
1.18
24
9.67
1.08
0.402
M2
31
9.52
1.06
22
9.17
0.96
0.221
M3
24
8.81
1.16
21
8.34
0.89
0.138
Lower jaw
I1
16
5.09
0.28
17
5.11
0.29
0.692
I2
19
5.78
0.62
20
5.85
0.32
0.583
C
22
6.85
0.73
19
6.71
0.27
0.110
P1
41
6.30
0.95
36
6.00
0.88
0.011
P2
41
6.91
0.54
38
6.54
0.54
0.026
M1
54
9.98
1.35
42
9.51
1.29
0.040
M2
59
9.52
1.34
40
9.29
1.23
0.389
M3
36
9.04
1.38
27
8.96
1.54
0.825
N: Number of teeth; A: Average; SD: Standard Deviation; *: Statistically Significant; I1: Central Incisor; I2: Lateral Incisor; C: Canine; P1: First Premolar; P2: Second Premolar; M1: First Molar; M2: Second Molar; M3: Third Molar
Table 4: Mesiodistal diameter of the tooth crown.
The buccolingual diameter of the tooth crown was measured on a total of 897 permanent teeth. There were statistically significant differences between males and females in the buccolingual diameter of the crown of the maxillary canine (males 8.26 ± 0.56 mm, females 7.75 ± 0.50 mm, p < 0.001 ), maxillary second molar (males 10.34 ± 2.17 mm, females 9.08 ± 1.85 mm, p < 0.027); mandibular canine (males 7.83 ± 0.56 mm, females 6.65 ± 0.60 mm, p < 0.013), mandibular first premolar (males 6.50 ± 1.60 mm, females 5.70 ± 1.50 mm, p < 0.025 ), and the mandibular second premolar (males 6.80 ± 1.75 mm, females 5.80 ± 1.60 mm, p < 0.009), Table 5.
Male
Female
p-level
N
A (mm)
SD (mm)
N
A (mm)
SD (mm)
Upperjaw
I1
14
7.37
0.25
19
6.96
0.37
0.231
I2
24
6.57
0.59
23
6.10
0.20
0.413
C
23
8.26
0.56
26
7.75
0.50
0.015
P1
27
7.8
1.81
21
6.96
1.89
0.126
P2
33
7.83
1.95
21
7.02
1.93
0.142
M1
30
10.1
2.00
24
9.53
1.6
0.262
M2
34
10.34
2.17
23
9.08
1.85
0.027
M3
23
9.43
1.77
21
8.78
1.97
0.259
Lower jaw
I1
16
6.07
0.44
17
5.82
0.37
0.369
I2
19
6.27
0.42
20
6.13
0.33
0.216
C
22
7.83
0.56
19
6.65
0.60
0.013
P1
41
6.53
1.62
36
5.71
1.51
0.025
P2
44
6.84
1.75
36
5.81
1.63
0.009
M1
54
9.1
1.66
42
8.63
1.52
0.158
M2
59
8.71
1.59
40
8.27
1.57
0.179
M3
36
8.19
1.46
27
8.13
1.58
0.868
N: Number of Teeth; A: Average; SD: Standard Deviation; *: Statistically Significant; I1: Central Incisor; I2: Lateral Incisor; C: Canine; P1: First Premolar; P2: Second Premolar; M1: First Molar; M2: Second Molar; M3= Third Molar
Table 5: Buccolingual diameter of the tooth crown.
Measurements needed to calculate the robustness of a tooth were performed on a total of 861 permanent teeth. There were statistically significant differences between males and females in the maxillary canine (males 61.28 ± 7.49 mm, females 55.87 ± 7,23 mm, p < 0.001 ),maxillary second molar (males 98.5 ± 29.0 mm, female 83.0 ± 25.0 mm, p < 0.026), mandibular canine (males 53.63 ± 6.34 mm, females 44.62 ± 5.87 mm, p < 0.001), mandibular first premolar (males 42.0 ± 15.0 mm, female 35.0 ± 15.0 mm, p < 0.038 ), mandibular secondpremolar (males 44.5 ± 17.0 mm, female 35.5 ± 15.0 mm, p < 0.022 ), mandibular first molar (males 90.8 ± 28.9 mm, females 82.07 ± 25.0 mm, p < 0.034), Table 6.
Male
Female
p-level
N
A (mm)
SD (mm)
N
A (mm)
SD (mm)
Upperjaw
I1
14
62.04
8.65
19
58.26
8.19
0.304
I2
24
41.85
6.72
23
41.38
4.56
0.291
C
23
61.28
7.49
26
55.87
7.23
0.001
P1
27
51.1
16.2
21
45.3
17.5
0.241
P2
32
50.4
16.5
21
44.1
15.4
0.169
M1
29
101.4
29.4
24
93.4
24.9
0.296
M2
31
98.43
29.4
22
83.26
25.1
0.026
M3
23
84
24
21
74.5
22.9
0.188
Lower jaw
I1
16
31.68
3.57
17
30.21
3.35
0.624
I2
19
37.45
5.33
20
35.96
4.29
0.705
C
22
53.63
6.34
19
44.62
5.87
0.001
P1
41
42.4
15.1
36
35.4
13.6
0.038
P2
41
44.5
17.1
36
35.8
15.4
0.022
M1
54
90.8
28.9
42
82.07
25.0
0.034
M2
59
84.8
26.9
40
78.5
24.8
0.239
M3
36
75.7
23.9
27
74.8
26.5
0.890
N: Number of Teeth; A: Average; SD: Standard Deviation; *: Statistically Significant; I1: Central Incisor; I2: Lateral Incisor; C: Canine; P1: First Premolar; P2: Second Premolar; M1: First Molar; M2: Second Molar; M3: Third Molar.
Table 6: Robustness of the teeth.
The percentage of sexual dimorphism was calculated for all odontometric features that showed a statistically significant difference between males and females, Table 7. The greatest difference in male and female odontometric features was evident in the robustness of the mandibular second premolar (24.3 %) and in mandibular canine (20,10%).The mesiodistal diameter of the tooth crown showed least difference between sexes, with only 4.94% (mandibular first molar). The buccolingual diameter of the tooth crown showed higher difference between sexes, with the 17.7%, for maxillary canine and second premolar.
Male
Female
sexualdimorfism
N
A (mm)
SD (mm)
N
A (mm)
SD (mm)
p-level
x�
(%)b
Mesiodistal diameter of the tooth crown (mm)
L-P1
41
6.30
0.95
36
6.00
0.88
0.011
0.3
5.00
L-P2
41
6.91
0.54
38
6.54
0.54
0.026
0.37
5.65
L-M1
54
9.98
1.35
42
9.51
1.29
0.040
0.47
4.94
Buccolingual diameter of the tooth crown (mm)
U-C
23
8.26
0.56
26
7.75
0.50
0.015
0.51
6.50
U-M2
34
10.34
2.17
23
9.08
1.85
0.027
1.26
13.80
L-C
22
7.83
0.56
19
6.65
0.60
0.013
1.18
17.70
L-P1
41
6.53
1.62
36
5.71
1.51
0.025
0.82
14.30
L-P2
44
6.84
1.75
36
5.81
1.63
0.009
1.03
17.70
Robustness of the teeth (mm)
U-C
23
61.28
7.49
26
55.87
7.23
0.001
5.41
9.68
U-M2
31
98.8
29.4
22
83.4
25.1
0.026
15.4
18.40
L-C
22
53.63
6.34
19
44.62
5.87
0.001
8.91
20.10
L-P1
41
42.4
15.1
36
35.4
13.6
0.038
7
19.70
L-P2
41
44.5
17.1
36
35.8
15.4
0.022
8.7
24.30
L-M1
54
90.8
28.9
42
82.07
25.0
0.034
8.73
10.63
N: Number of Teeth; A: Average; SD: Standard Deviation; *: Statistically Significant. U: Upper Teeth; L: Lower Teeth; I1: Central Incisor; I2: Lateral Incisor; C: Canine; P1: First Premolar; P2: Second Premolar; M1: First Molar; M2: Second Molar; M3: Third Molar.
aX: A male - A female.
b%:(A male/A female - 1.0)x 100.
Table 7: Degree of sexual dimorphism of the odontometric features in the Palermo sample.
Odontometric features that show sexual dimorphism are used in sex determination in cases where the sex could not be determined by the use of metric variables of pelvic bones. On the basis of mean values and standard deviation, we have determined the range of values that can be attributed only to males and only to females, Table 8.
Range of values characteristic only for males
Range of values characteristic only for females
Mesiodistal diameter of the tooth crown (mm)
L-P1
6.88 - 7.25
5.12 - 5.35
L-P2
7.08 - 7.45
6.00 - 6.37
L-M1
10.8 - 11.33
8.22 - 8.63
Buccolingual diameter of the tooth crown (mm)
U-C
8.25 - 8.82
7.25 - 7.7
U-M2
10.93-12.51
7.23-8.17
L-C
7.25 - 8.39
6.05 - 7.17
L-P1
7.21-8.14
4.20-4.91
L-P2
7.43-8.58
4.18-5.09
Robustness of the teeth (mm)
U-C
63.1 - 68.77
48.64 - 53.79
U-M2
108.51-128.38
58.30-69.40
L-C
50.49 - 59.97
38.75 - 47.29
L-P1
49.01-57.97
21.80-27.30
L-P2
51.26-61.58
20.40-27.40
L-M1
107.07 - 119.7
57.07 - 61.9
U: Upper Teeth; L: Lower Teeth; I1: Central Incisor; I2: Lateral Incisor; C: Canine; P1: First Premolar; P2: Second Premolar; M1: First Molar; M2: Second Molar; M3: Third Molar.
Table 8: Range of measured odontometric values that show sexual dimorphism.
Comparing the odontometric data on the remains of individuals of the unknown sex with the range of odontometric features shown in Table 8 the sex can further be determined on 55 individuals or more; 36 females and 19 males. The new sex ratio from the Palermo sample is shown in Table 9.
N total (%)
N sex- determined:male + female (%)
N sex - undetermined (%)
187 (100.0)
170 (90.9)
17 (9.1)
N male (%)
N female (%)
74 (39.6)
96 (51.3)
N: Number of Individuals.
Table 9: Results of the sex determination using metrical variables of the pelvis bone and odontometric features.
Including odontometric parameters in the procedure to determine the sex, raises the efficiency from 61.5% (on the basis of metric variables of pelvic bone alone) to 90.9% (combining pelvic and odontometric features), which presents a 29.4% increase in the success of determining the sex.
Discussion
Determination of the sex of human bone remains represents a crucial stage in any palaeoanthropological study. A current opinion suggests that the pelvic bone provides the highest accuracy level for sex determination. However, skeletal remains in archaeology are very often poorly preserved and fragmentary.
The odontometric features of teeth are considered specific of a population [13] and that direct comparison and non-critic analyses can lead to false conclusions.
For this reason it is best to combine several methods to increase the percentage of success in determining the sex. As a method of sex determination, odontometric analysis has been investigated over a long period of time [20-26,10,19,13,27-31], demonstrating that dental dimensions can be used successfully in sexual diagnosis in both living individuals and in skeletal remains in poor and/or fragmented condition.
Muller et al. [10] carried out a research on French students and confirmed the difference between males and females in the buccolingual diameter of the mandibular canine. Iscan & Kedici [13] found that canine teeth of both jaws are more dimorphic. Observing the medieval Croatian population, Vodanovic et al. [9] discovered a statistically significant difference between males and females in both jaws for several teeth.
Further, research [32-34] shown that a genetic control of sexual dimorphism exists in permanent tooth size. Garn et al. [20], has been shown that the magnitude of sexual dimorphism in tooth size has genetic basis, as confirmed by family-line similarities in the magnitude of brother-sister tooth size dimorphism.
The results in general match reports in the dental literature that emphasize greater sex dimorphism of the canines [35-38,26,19,13,29- 31].
Mesiodistal and buccolingual diameters of the permanent tooth crown are the two most commonly used and researched features used in determining sex on the basis of dental measurements [8].
This study reveals that the permanent canine is the tooth with the greatest degree of sexual dimorphism, but also second premolar.
The skeletal remains-including the teeth- contemporary cemeteries in Palermo (Sicily, Italy) are very well preserved. However, there are many limiting factors that hindered collecting dental measurements and therefore significantly decreased the amount of data available for analysis. Among these factors are: dental wear and pathologies.
Crowns of permanent teeth are formed at an early stage and their dimensions remain unchanged during further growth and development, except in cases when specific changes and disorders in terms of functionality, pathology and nutrition can have affect on the normal dimensions of a tooth [8].
However, even in the presence of certain limiting factors, if they have a minimal effect on the tooth or are in specific locations–i.e., not on the reference points for the different measurements–it is possible to obtain a sufficiently large sample of teeth for odontometric analysis.
All of these considerations emphasize the importance of the present study, which attempts to present odontometric analysis as an additional methodology, quick and easy to use, for sex determination of skeletal remains in archaeological contexts and in forensics-as in the case of mass disasters-where identification of individuals is not possible by standard methods.
Conclusion
The purpose of this paper is to determine sex on the basis of pelvic features of the skeletal remains excavated at the contemporary cemetery in Palermo, to make an odontometric analysis of permanent teeth of the sample, and finally to determine sex on the basis of odontometric features.
Our results supply an additional technique in determining the sex in Sicilian human population that can be integrated in standard techniques. This method offers a chance to increase the diagnosis of the sex in the absence of cranial or pelvic data.
References
- Buikstra JE, Ubelaker DH. Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains. Fayetteville: Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series. 1994.
- Mays S, Cox M. Sex determination in skeletal remains. In: Cox M, Mays S, editors. Human Osteology in Archaeology and Forensic Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000; 117-130.
- Ubelaker DH. Methodological considerations in the forensic applications of human skeletal biology. In: Katzenberg MA, Saunders SR, editors. Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton. New York: Wiley-Liss.2000; 41-67.
- Ferembach D, Schwidetzky I, Stloukal M. Recommendations for age and sex diagnoses of skeletons. J Hum Evol. 1980; 9: 517-549.
- Rosenberg K, Trevathan W. Birth, obstetrics and human evolution. BJOG. 2002; 109: 1199-1206.
- Brkic´ H. Forenzicka cnastomatologija. Zagreb: S? kolskaknjiga. 2000.
- Lukacs JR, Hemphill BE. Odontometry and biological affinity in south Asia: analysis of three ethnic groups from northwest India. Hum Biol. 1993; 65: 279-325.
- Teschler-Nicola M, Prossinger H. Sex determination using tooth dimensions. In: Alt KFW, Rösing F, Teschler-Nicola M, editors. Dental Anthropology, Fundamentals, Limits and Prospects. Wien: Springer-Verlag. 1998; 479-501.
- Vodanovic M, Demo Ž, Njemirovskij V, Keros J, Brkic H. Odontometrics: a useful method for sex determination in an archaeological skeletal population? J Archaeol Sci. 2007; 34: 905-913.
- Muller M, Lupi-Pegurier L, Quatrehomme G, Bolla M. Odontometrical method useful in determining gender and dental alignment. Forensic Sci Int. 2001; 121: 194-197.
- Alt KW, Riemensperger B, Vach W, Krekeler G. [Tooth root length and tooth neck diameter as indicators in sex determination of human teeth]. Anthropol Anz. 1998; 56: 131-144.
- Rao NG, Rao NN, Pai ML, Kotian MS. Mandibular canine index--a clue for establishing sex identity. Forensic Sci Int. 1989; 42: 249-254.
- Iscan MY, Kedici PS. Sexual variation in bucco-lingual dimensions in Turkish dentition. Forensic Sci Int. 2003; 137: 160-164.
- Balciùniené I, Jankauskas R. Odontometry of Lithuanian paleopopulations. Anthropol Anz. 1993; 51: 31-39.
- Lew KK, Keng SB. Anterior crown dimensions and relationship in an ethnic Chinese population with normal occlusions. Aust Orthod J. 1991; 12: 105-109.
- Murail P, Bruzek J, Houet F, Cunha E. DSP: A tool for probabilistic sex diagnosis using worldwide variability in hip bone measurements. Bull MémSoc Anthropol Paris. 2005; 17: 167-176.
- Briggs CA. Anthropological assessment. In: Craniofacial Identification in Forensic Medicine. Clement JG, Ranson DL, editors. London: Arnold. 1998; 49–61.
- Hillson S. Dental anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 2002.
- Pettenati-Soubayroux I, Signoli M, Dutour O. Sexual dimorphism in teeth: discriminatory effectiveness of permanent lower canine size observed in a XVIIIth century osteological series. Forensic Sci Int. 2002; 126: 227-232.
- Garn SM, Lewis AB, Swindler DR, Kerewsky RS. Genetic control of sexual dimorphism in tooth size. J Dent Res. 1967; 46: 963-972.
- Garn SM, Cole PE, Wainwright RL, Guire KE. Sex discriminatory effectiveness using combinations of permanent teeth. J Dent Res. 1977; 56: 697.
- Sciulli PW, Williams JA, Gugelchuk GM. Canine size: an aid in sexing prehistoric Amerindians. J Dent Res. 1977; 56: 1424.
- Rao NG, Rao NN, Pai ML, Kotian MS. Mandibular canine index--a clue for establishing sex identity. Forensic Sci Int. 1989; 42: 249-254.
- De Vito C, Saunders SR. A discriminant function analysis of deciduous teeth to determine sex. J Forensic Sci. 1990; 35: 845-858.
- Beyer-Olsen E, Alexandersen V. Sex assessment of medieval Norwegian skeletons based on permanent tooth crown size. Int J Osteoarchaeol. 1995; 5: 274–281.
- Lund H, Mörnstad H. Gender determination by odontometrics in a Swedish population. J Forensic Odontostomatol. 1999; 17: 30-34.
- Kondo S, Townsend GC, Kanazawa E. Size relationships among permanent mandibular molars in Aboriginal Australians and Papua New Guinea Highlanders. Am J Hum Biol. 2005; 17: 622-633.
- Okazaki K. Sex assessment of subadult skeletons based on tooth crown measurements: an examination on the interpopulational variation of sex differences and an application to excavated skeletons. Anthropol Sci. 2005: 113: 139–159.
- Karaman F. Use of diagonal teeth measurements in predicting gender in a Turkish population. J Forensic Sci. 2006; 51: 630-635.
- Acharya AB, Mainali S. Univariate sex dimorphism in the Nepalese dentition and the use of discriminant functions in gender assessment. Forensic Sci Int. 2007; 173: 47-56.
- Cardoso HFV. Sample-specific (universal) metric approaches for determining the sex of immature human skeletal remains using permanent tooth dimensions. J Archaeol Sci. 2008; 35: 158–168.
- Alvesalo L, Tammisalo E. Enamel thickness of 45, X females' permanent teeth. Am J Hum Genet. 1981; 33: 464-469.
- Alvesalo L, Tammisalo E, Hakola P. Enamel thickness in 47, XYY males' permanent teeth. Ann Hum Biol. 1985; 12: 421-427.
- Alvesalo L, Tammisalo E, Therman E. 47, XXX females, sex chromosomes, and tooth crown structure. Hum Genet. 1987; 77: 345-348.
- Moorrees CF, Jensen E, Kai-Jen Yen P, Thomsen SO. Mesiodistal crown diameters of the deciduous and permanent teeth in individuals. J Dent Res. 1957; 36: 39-47.
- Garn SM, Lewis AB, Kerewsky RS. Sex difference in tooth size. J Dent Res. 1964; 43: 306.
- Rosing FW. Sexing immature human skeletons. J Hum Evol. 1983; 12; 149–155.
- Hattab FN, al-Khateeb S, Sultan I. Mesiodistal crown diameters of permanent teeth in Jordanians. Arch Oral Biol. 1996; 41: 641-645.
- Bräuer G. Osteometrie. In: Knussmann R, editor. Anthropologie, Handbuch des vergleichenden Biologie des Menschen. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag. 1988; 160-23.
- Gaillard J. Détermination sexuelle d’un oscoxal fragmentaire. Bull Mém Soc Anthropol Paris. 1960; 1: 255-268.
- Schulter-Ellis FP, Schmidt DJ, Hayek LC, Craig J. Determination of sex with a discriminant analysis of new pelvic bone measurements: Part I, J Forensic Sci. 1983; 30: 178-185.
Download PDF