Gender Determination of Adult Individuals by Three‐Dimensional Modeling of Canines

Abstract

Gender determination is a fundamental issue in forensic anthropology. Many techniques based on bone and dental remains have been proposed. It is not always possible to implement the techniques using bones, but teeth are often perfectly preserved. It has been demonstrated that the canine has the greatest sexual dimorphism, and the aim of this work was to provide an easy and accurate dental technique for determining the gender in the absence of other skeletal elements. The sample was composed of 210 CT scans with four healthy canines. The 840 canines were modeled using MIMICS® 10.01 software. The total volume of each tooth was determined. Seven mathematical models were determined by binary logistic regressions and ranked in order of relative performance. The seven proposed predictive models thus performed (0.910≤AUC≤0.938), with overall rates of correct predictions between 82.38 and 85.24%. The 4-canine model is the most powerful for predicting the gender.

A novel method for sex estimation using 3D computed tomography models of tooth roots: A volumetric analysis

“…The root volume of the maxillary second incisor reached the highest accuracy rate (100%), followed by the maxillary canine, which correctly classified sex in 97.10% of the sample. This result is in accordance with the study by Tardivo et al (2015) of sexual dimorphism in the total volume of canines. However, Kazzazi and Kranioti (2016) and most previous studies on crown and cervical measurements (Saunders, Chan, Kahlon, Kluge, & FitzGerald, 2007;Angadi, Hemani, Prabhu, & Acharya, 2013;Khamis, Taylor, Malik, & Townsend, 2014;Viciano, D'Anastasio, & Capasso, 2015) have demonstrated a greater sexual dimorphism in the dimensions of mandibular canines.…”

Sex estimation by odontometrics of nonadult human remains from a contemporary Italian sample

“…The canines were followed by the mandibular second molar (M 2 ), the maxillary and mandibular second premolars (PM 2 , PM 2 ), the maxillary and mandibular first premolars (PM 1 , PM 1 ), and the mandibular first molar (M 1 ). These data are consistent with the findings of previous studies on the greater sexual dimorphism of the canines (Acharya & Mainali, 2007; Adams & Pilloud, 2019; Angadi et al, 2013; Capitaneanu et al, 2017; De Angelis et al, 2015; Flohr, Kierdorf, & Kierdorf, 2016; Gonçalves, Granja, Cardoso, & de Carvalho, 2014; Hassett, 2011; İşcan & Kedici, 2003; Kazzazi & Kranioti, 2018; Khamis et al, 2014; Luna, 2019; Martins Filho, Lopez‐Capp, Biazevic, & Michel‐Crosato, 2016; Pereira, Bernardo, Pestana, Santos, & de Mendonça, 2010; Shaweesh, 2017; Tardivo et al, 2015; Thompson, 2013; Viciano et al, 2011, 2015, 2013; Zorba et al, 2011), and on the sexual dimorphism of both maxillary and mandibular first and second premolars (Adams & Pilloud, 2019; Kazzazi & Kranioti, 2018; Shaweesh, 2017; Yong et al, 2018; Zorba et al, 2011) and mandibular first and second molars (Acharya & Mainali, 2007; Adams & Pilloud, 2019; Angadi et al, 2013; Aris et al, 2018; Kazzazi & Kranioti, 2018; Martins Filho et al, 2016; Peckmann et al, 2015; Tuttösí & Cardoso, 2015; Viciano et al, 2015, 2013; Zorba et al, 2012, 2011). Moreover, several crown and cervical measurements of the maxillary and mandibular incisors (i.e., I 1 , I 1 , I 2 , I 2 ) and third molars (i.e., M 3 , M 3 ) also showed significant differences between males and females in the present study, and this finding is consistent with other studies (Acharya & Mainali, 2007; Adams & Pilloud, 2019; Ateş, Karaman, Işcan, & Erdem, 2006; Condon et al, 2011; Kazzazi & Kranioti, 2018; Peckmann et al,…”

“…Over the last 60 years, following the study of Hunt Jr and Gleiser (1955) about sex estimation from osseous and dental remains of nonadult individuals, analyses have been carried out to determine a reliable method for sex estimation from teeth. Thus, numerous studies have quantified sexually dimorphic differences between males and females through odontometric techniques, with the demonstration that sexual dimorphism results in larger teeth in males than females in permanent dentition (Adams & Pilloud, 2019; Angadi, Hemani, Prabhu, & Acharya, 2013; Capitaneanu, Willems, Jacobs, Fieuws, & Thevissen, 2017; Hassett, 2011; Kazzazi & Kranioti, 2017, 2018; Khamis, Taylor, Malik, & Townsend, 2014; Luna, 2019; Peckmann, Logar, Garrido‐Varas, Meek, & Pinto, 2016; Peckmann, Meek, Dilkie, & Mussett, 2015; Shaweesh, 2017; Sonika, Harshaminder, Madhushankari, & Sri Kennath, 2011; Tardivo et al, 2015; Viciano, Alemán, D'Anastasio, Capasso, & Botella, 2011; Viciano, D'Anastasio, & Capasso, 2015; Viciano, López‐Lázaro, & Alemán, 2013; Yong et al, 2018; Zorba, Moraitis, Eliopoulos, & Spiliopoulou, 2012; Zorba, Moraitis, & Manolis, 2011; Zorba, Vanna, & Moraitis, 2014) and deciduous teeth (López‐Lázaro, Alemán, Viciano, Irurita, & Botella, 2018; Paknahad, Vossoughi, & Ahmadi Zeydabadi, 2016; Shankar et al, 2013; Singh, Bhatia, Sood, & Sharma, 2017; Viciano et al, 2013; Żądzińska, Karasińska, Jedrychowska‐Dańska, Watala, & Witas, 2008).…”

Dimorphism in Dental Tissues: Sex differences in Archaeological Individuals for Multiple Tooth Types

“…There has been a focus on linear MD and BL canine dimensions as these have been noted as particularly dimorphic (Garn et al, 1965; Moss and Moss-Salentijn, 1977; Hillson, 1996; Lund and Mörnstad, 1999; Pettenati-Soubayroux et al, 2002; Işcan and Kedici, 2003; Schwartz and Dean, 2005; Acharya and Mainali, 2007, 2009, Viciano et al, 2011, 2015; Acharya et al, 2011; Ribeiro et al, 2012; Tardivo et al, 2015). Dimorphism has also been observed in premolars and molars (Prabhu and Acharya, 2009; Viciano et al, 2011, 2013, 2015; Zorba et al, 2011) and occasionally in incisors (Garn et al, 1964; Staka et al, 2016).…”

“…The analysis of other dental measurements, such as tissue volumes, has been less common than traditional crown diameters, but dental tissue proportions, tissue volumes and surface areas have also been identified as being sexually dimorphic (Stroud et al, 1994; Harris and Hicks, 1998; Zilberman and Smith, 2001; Schwartz and Dean, 2005; Saunders et al, 2007; Feeney et al, 2010; Tardivo et al, 2015, 2011; Kazzazi and Kranioti, 2017; García-Campos et al, 2018a; b; Sorenti et al, 2019). Despite being used infrequently, the use of dental tissue volumes and surface areas has been recommended for sex determination (García-Campos et al, 2018a).…”