[Downloaded free from http://www.jiaomr.in on Tuesday, December 24, 2019, IP: 47.247.156.

98]

Forensic Odontology Section: Original Article

Buccolingual Dimension of Teeth: A Sensitive Odontometric

Parameter in Gender Differentiation
Pranali K Wankhede, Anita D Munde1, Safia S Shoeb1, Sunil Sahuji2, Vikram R Niranjan3, Naga Jyothi Meka
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal’s Dental College and Hospital, Hingoli, 1Department of Oral Medicine and
Radiology, Rural Dental College, Loni, 2Private Practice, Aurangabad, 3Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Saraswati Danwantri Dental College, Parbhani,
Maharashtra, India

Abstract
Introduction: Determination of sex is important in identification of unknown person. Teeth are a potential source for sex determination
due to unique odontologic characteristics. Objectives: To determine the sex of individuals using buccolingual dimensions of permanent
teeth except third molars. This study involved 100 native residents of Ahmednagar district, Maharashtra in the age group of 18–40 years.
Materials and Methods: The buccolingual (B‑L) dimensional measurements of 28 teeth, except third molars, of 50 males and 50 females aged
18–40 years were measured on the study casts using vernier calipers with a resolution of 0.01 mm, and analyzed using discriminant function
analysis. Results: Males showed greater B‑L dimensions of teeth in comparison to females exhibiting statistically significant dimorphism.
However, discriminant function analysis derived accuracy of determination of sex using 26 was 69% and 43 was 66.0%. On the whole, the
percentage of overall accuracy was 68%. Conclusion: Application of B‑L dimensional variability among males and females in the population
of Ahmednagar can aid in forensic sex determination, as this study showed, that can be taken into account for sex determination in combination
with skeletal traits and/or other odontometric measurements such as mesiodistal diameters.

Keywords: Buccolingual sex determination, sexual dimorphism, tooth size

Introduction groups.[3,4] Although teeth cannot be used as the sole indicator

Identification of humans has been the mainstay of civilization.
The identification of the deceased and the living is necessary,
and has become an important and integral part of our daily life.
The identification of sex is of significance not only in cases
of mass fatality incidents where bodies are damaged beyond
recognition but also in situations where only fragments of
jaw bones with teeth (or teeth alone) are found, where sex
determination is possible only with the help of teeth.[1]
Teeth are excellent material in living and nonliving populations
for anthropological, genetic, odontologic and forensic
investigations. Because they are the hardest and chemically
the most stable tissue in the body, selectively preserved, and
fossilized, teeth provide the best records for evolutionary change.
Odontometry helps us in determining sex in young individuals
in whom secondary sexual characters have not developed.[2]
According to literature review, tooth size varies from
population to population and also among different racial
Access this article online
of sex, various studies indicate that they serve as a good
adjunct for sex differentiation.[5] In general, males show larger
crown size than females, exhibiting sexual dimorphism.[6] The
present study chose the buccolingual (B‑L) dimensions for sex
determination because it is considered to be the most reliable
measurement than the mesiodistal dimension.[3,7,8]
The aim of the present study is to determine the gender of
an individual based on B‑L dimensions of teeth and analyze
if any sexual variation existed in the B‑L dimensions of
permanent teeth, except third molars, in the adult population of
Ahmednagar district, Maharashtra. It also intended to evaluate
Address for correspondence: Dr. Pranali K Wankhede,
14/15 Shri Hari Apartment, Harihar Nagar, Nagpur ‑ 410 034,
Maharashtra, India.
E‑mail: pranaliwankhede@gmail.com
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak,
and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new
creations are licensed under the identical terms.

Quick Response Code: For reprints contact: reprints@medknow.com

Website:
www.jiaomr.in
How to cite this article: Wankhede PK, Munde AD, Shoeb SS, Sahuji S,
Niranjan VR, Meka NJ. Buccolingual dimension of teeth: A sensitive
odontometric parameter in gender differentiation. J Indian Acad Oral Med
DOI:
10.4103/jiaomr.JIAOMR_76_16
Radiol 2017;29:70-3.
Received: 12‑07‑2016  Accepted: 24‑06‑2017  Published: 04‑08‑2017

70 © 2017 Journal of Indian Academy of Oral Medicine & Radiology | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
[Downloaded free from http://www.jiaomr.in on Tuesday, December 24, 2019, IP: 47.247.156.98]
Wankhede, et al.: Gender determination using buccolingual dimensions of teeth
the reliability of dimensional variations of teeth in determining
sex the among same the population.
Materials and Methods
The study population constituted 50 males and 50 females
of Ahmednagar district, in the age group of 18 to 40 years,
reporting as outpatients in our department. The study
participants were selected using simple random sampling. The
inclusion criteria included the presence of complete eruption
of all permanent teeth in both arches except third molars, and
excluded the developmental defects or pathologies affecting
the size and shape of teeth, with no caries or fracture or no
conservative treatment other than class I occlusal restoration
and no developmentally missing teeth in any of the segments.
Following the approval of the ethical committee, each patient
was informed about the study, and prior consent was obtained.
The impressions of both the jaws were made with alginate
and poured immediately in type IV dental stone to minimize
dimensional changes. The greatest distance between buccal and
lingual surfaces of crown parallel to the long axis of the tooth
was measured with the help of digital vernier caliper having
0.01 mm resolution [Figure 1a and b]. A single observer read all
the measurements. Data obtained from various measurements
was recorded on a proforma. It was then analyzed using
stepwise discriminant function statistics using IBM SPSS
version 19, Armonk, NY, USA.
Results
The study was carried out among 100 individuals belonging
to Ahmednagar district in the age group of 18 to 40 years.
B‑L measurements of teeth of these individuals were
measured on the maxillary and mandibular study casts. The
data thus obtained was subjected to statistical analysis which
included descriptive statistics, independent‑sample t‑test, and
discriminant function analysis.
It was found that the dimensions of teeth in males were
greater compared to that of females, which is almost similar
to the results of the previous studies. However, only a few
teeth showed statistically significant dimorphism. The
dimensions of male teeth were greater in comparison to that
of females as a part of univariate analysis. In multivariate
analysis, only maxillary left first molar and mandibular right
a b
Figure 1: Measurement of the distance between buccal and lingual
surfaces of crown parallel to the long axis of the tooth with the help of
digital vernier caliper. (a) anterior teeth; (b) posterior teeth
Journal of Indian Academy of Oral Medicine & Radiology  ¦  Volume 29 ¦ Issue 1 ¦ January‑March 2017
canine contributed the most. Taking these teeth into account
separately, different sectioning points were obtained. It could
be interpreted that the values below these sectioning points
belongs to females and greater values to males.
The percentage of dimorphism can be defined as “the percent to
which the tooth size of males exceed that of females” to express the
magnitude of sexual dimorphism.[9] This was calculated as follows
{(Xm/Xf) −1} × 100
Where Xm = mean male tooth dimension
Xf = mean female tooth dimension.
Several stepwise discriminant function statistics were used
to develop formulae to determine sex. Table 1 provides the
summary of coefficients and sectioning points for each function
to determine sex. The structure matrix describes the magnitude
of relation between the function and the variable entered. In the
present study, 26 and 43 contributed the most to the analysis.
The sectioning point obtained was 0.00, i.e., the values obtained
after applying the following formula is less than 0.00 then the
material will be considered to be belonging to a female.
The structure matrix showed that 26 and 43 are the variables that
contributed most for the analysis. The standardized, canonical
discriminant function coefficient for 26 is 0.757 and for 43
is 0.542. It was found that 26 could classify the original and
cross validated grouped cases correctly by 69% [Table 2]. It
could classify 33 males among 50 males and 36 females among
50 females correctly. Rest of the 14 males and 17 females
showed overlapping results. Similarly 43 could classify
the original and cross validated grouped cases correctly by
66% [Table 3]. An overall accuracy of determination of sex from
these measurements was 68%. Individually, an accuracy of sex
determination by 26 was 69% and by 43 was 66% [Table 4].
Discussion
The word dimorphism comes from the etymology
“Dimorphos” (Latin). By definition, dimorphism means
occurring in two different forms.[9] “Sexual dimorphism” refers
to those, differences in size, structure, and appearance between
males and females that can be applied to dental identification
because no two mouths are alike.[10]
Many anthropologists have preferred the osteometric techniques
for the morphological assessment of differences in size and
shape of the human remains. Bones that are used chiefly for
sex determination are the pelvis and skull,[11,12] together they
provide a high accuracy in sex determination (98%)[11] proving
to be the most reliable material for sex determination. It has
been observed that sexual dimorphism depends on the region
of the skeleton and its use. Studies on B‑L dimensions of teeth,
and their reliability as an indicator of sex are minimal. In
addition, such studies conducted among the Indian population
are extremely minimal. With this background, the present
study was intended to be carried out in the Ahmednagar
district. Univariate analysis of the study showed that overall
71
[Downloaded free from http://www.jiaomr.in on Tuesday, December 24, 2019, IP: 47.247.156.98]

Wankhede, et al.: Gender determination using buccolingual dimensions of teeth

Table 1: Summary of canonical discriminant function coefficient for the B‑L dimensions of teeth
Variables Standardized coefficient Structure matrix Raw coefficient Group centroids
Male Female Sectioning point
26 0.757 0.845 1.401 0.413 −0.413 0.00
43 0.542 0.665 0.758 0.325 −0.325 0.00

Table 2: Accuracy of determination of sex using 26 Table 4: Overall accuracy of classification

Sex Predicted group Total Sex Predicted group Total
membership membership
Male Female Male Female
Original Original
Count Male 33 17 50 Count Male 32 18 50
Female 14 36 50 Female 14 36 50
% Male 66 34 100 % Male 64.0 36.0 100.0
Female 28 72 100 Female 28.0 72.0 100.0
Cross-validated Cross-validated
Count Male 33 17 50 Count Male 32 18 50
Female 14 36 50 Female 14 36 50
% Male 66 34 100 % Male 64.0 36.0 100.0
Female 28 72 100 Female 28.0 72.0 100.0

which the classification accuracy was 66% for males and 72%
Table 3: Accuracy of determining sex using 43
for females. Similar results were obtained by Rai et al.,[13]
Sex Predicted group Total Nicola et al.,[14] and Rani et al.[15] In the study by Prabhu,[16]
membership the mandibular first molar was found to be the most dimorphic
Male Female tooth, which was not observed in our study.
Original
In the present study, the percentage of sexual dimorphism
Count Male 29 21 50
of maxillary left first molar was 5.6%, with a classification
Female 13 37 50
% Male 58 42 100
accuracy of 66% for males and 72% for females. Similarly,
Female 26 74.0 100 in the study conducted by Rohtak,[11] the percentage of sexual
Cross-validated dimorphism was 7.7% and a classification accuracy of 100%
Count Male 29 21 50 for males and 8.25% for females was found. In another study
Female 13 37 50 from North India by Rai,[13] the author concluded that whenever
% Male 58 42 100 the B‑L of either maxillary molar is more than 10.7 mm, the
Female 26 74 100 probability of sex being male is 100% and when it is less
than 10.7 mm the sex could be 82% female. In the study by
B‑L dimensions of male dentition are greater than those of Nicola,[14] B‑L diameter of the first upper molar and upper
females, which is in accordance with the previous studies.[2,3] canine was 80% successful in sex determination.

Maxillary left first molar and mandibular right canine, in our

study, exhibited sexual dimorphism. This is in accordance
with the studies conducted by Rai et al.[13] and Acharya et al.[7]
Another study by Acharya[8] differs from the present study as
they found the left mandibular canine showing dimorphism
apart from maxillary left second molar and maxillary right
first premolar. In this study, mandibular right canine showed
66% accuracy. Similar results were obtained in the study
conducted on Turkish population by Iscan et al.,[3] which
showed significant dimorphism in mandibular canine, first
and second molars, and first premolars; whereas the present
study showed significant dimorphism in mandibular canine and
maxillary first molar. The percentage of sexual dimorphism
of maxillary left first molar was determined to be 5.6%, in
Conclusion
The present study has described sexual dimorphism in
Ahmednagar district using univariate statistics and discriminant
analysis. The maxillary left first molar and mandibular right
canine showed consistent dimorphism. This study also
supported earlier studies, which considered sexual dimorphism
to be a population‑specific phenomenon. Males showed greater
B‑L dimensions in both maxillary and mandibular right and
left teeth. An overall accuracy of determination of sex from
these measurements was 68%. Individually, an accuracy of sex
determination by 26 was 69% and by 43 was 66%. However,
this is not sufficient to differentiate males from females
solely.[4] Hence, it can be concluded that B‑L dimensions of

72 Journal of Indian Academy of Oral Medicine & Radiology  ¦  Volume 29  ¦  Issue 1  ¦  January‑March 2017
[Downloaded free from http://www.jiaomr.in on Tuesday, December 24, 2019, IP: 47.247.156.98]

Wankhede, et al.: Gender determination using buccolingual dimensions of teeth

teeth of population in Ahmednagar district can effectively help
in the determination of sex in conjunction with other major
skeletal or dental traits.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Boaz K, Gupta C. Dimorphism in human maxillary and mandibular
canines in establishment of gender. J Forensic Dent Sci 2009;1:42‑ 4.
2. De Vito C, Saunders SR. A discriminant function analysis of deciduous
teeth to determine sex. J Forensic Sci 1990;35:845‑58.
3. Iscan MY, Kedici PS. Sexual variation in bucco‑lingual dimensions in
Turkish dentition. Forensic Sci Int 2003;137:160‑4.
4. Hashim HA, Al‑Ghamdi S. Tooth width and arch dimensions in normal
and malocclusion samples: An odontometric study. J Contemp Dent
Pract 2005;6:36‑51.
5. Vodanovi M, Demo Z, Njemirovskij V, Keros J, Brkic H. Odontometrics:
A useful method for sex determination in an archaeological skeletal
population. J Archeol Sci 2007;34:905‑13.
6. Lund H, Monstad H. Gender determination by odontometrics in a
Swedish population. J Forensic Odontostomatol 1999;17:30‑4.
7. Acharya AB, Mainali S. Sex discrimination potential of buccolingual
and mesiodistal tooth dimensions. J Forensic Sci 2008;53:790‑2.
8. Acharya BA, 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.
9. Garn SM, Lewis AB, Swindler DR, Kerewsky RS. Genetic control of
sexual dimorphism in tooth size. J Dent Res 1967;46:963‑72.
10. Tabers Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary. 16th ed. New Delhi, India:
Jaypee Pub; 1990.
11. Hemani S, Balachander N, Kumar AR, Ranjan K. Dental dimorphism in
ethnics of Tamil Nadu: Aid in forensic identification. J Forensic Odontol
2008;1:37‑45.
12. Reddy N. The Essentials of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology. 25th ed.
Hyderabad, India: Medical Book Co.
13. Rai B, Dhattawal Anand SC. Sex determination from tooth.
Medico‑Legal Update 2008;8:1‑4.
14. Nicola MT. Sexual dimorphism of tooth crown diameters. A contribution
to the determination of the sex of subadult individuals from the early
bronze age graveyard of Franzhausen I, lower Austria. Anthropol Anz
1992;50:51‑65.
15. Prathibha Rani RM, Mahima VG, Patil K. Bucco‑lingual dimension
of teeth ‑ An aid in sex determination. J Forensic Dent Sci
2009;1:88‑92.
16. Prabhu S, Acharya AB. Odontometric sex assessment in Indians.
Forensic Sci Int 2009;192:129.

Journal of Indian Academy of Oral Medicine & Radiology  ¦  Volume 29 ¦ Issue 1 ¦ January‑March 2017 73