Sexual dimorphism in mesiodistal dentin and enamel thickness.

Stroud, J. L.; Buschang, Peter H.; Goaz, Paul W.

doi:10.1259/dmfr.23.3.7835519

Cited by 85 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Accordindly, the results of the present study were not in agreement with other studies done by researchers in the other parts of the world 8,9,10,11,12 in which they have observed that the males had larger teeth than females in all the dimensions. In a study conducted by Zorba et al, in a Greek population, they found that males have bigger teeth than females and canine showed greatest sexual dimorphism.…”

Section: Results and Observationscontrasting

confidence: 99%

Molar Odontometrics In Gender Assessment – A Panoramic Radiographic Study.

Rathan¹

2017

IOSR JDMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Results and Observationscontrasting

confidence: 99%

Molar Odontometrics In Gender Assessment – A Panoramic Radiographic Study.

Rathan¹

2017

IOSR JDMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This finding is in agreement with a similar Brazilian study 8 and other investigations that suggested thresholds for proximal enamel reduction, in the interval of 0.4-0.5 mm, irrespective of the side. 5,6,9 A study in which dental crown dimensions were measured directly in the patient's mouth with a compass reported that aligned teeth had smaller mesiodistal widths and larger buccolingual measurements. 17 In another study, an index to assess morphological deviations of teeth, for eliminating crowding in the mandibular incisors region, was developed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…22 Other authors found that dentin thickness appeared to be greater in men. 9,15 Accordingly, sexual dimorphism in crown mesiodistal width might presumably be due to dentin thickness. In the present study, the crown mesiodistal, buccolingual and cervico-occlusal dimensions, as well as the proximal enamel thicknesses, were assessed irrespective of the gender.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crown dimensions and proximal enamel thickness of mandibular second bicuspids

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To achieve proper recontouring of anterior and posterior teeth, to obtain optimal morphology during enamel stripping, it is important to be aware of dental anatomy. This study aimed at evaluating crown dimensions and proximal enamel thickness in a sample of 40 extracted sound, human, mandibular, second bicuspids (20 right and 20 left). Mesiodistal, cervico-occlusal and buccolingual crown dimensions were measured using a digital caliper, accurate to 0.01 mm. Teeth were embedded in acrylic resin and cut along their long axes through the proximal surfaces to obtain 0.7 mm-thick central sections. Enamel thickness on the cut sections was measured using a perfilometer. Comparative analyses were carried out using the Student's-t test (α = 5%). The mean mesiodistal crown widths for right and left teeth were 7.79 mm (± 0.47) and 7.70 mm (± 0.51), respectively. Mean cervico-occlusal heights ranged from 8.31 mm (± 0.75) on the right to 8.38 mm (± 0.85) on the left teeth. The mean values for the buccolingual dimension were 8.67 mm (± 0.70) on the right and 8.65 mm (± 0.54) on the left teeth. The mean enamel thickness on the mesial surfaces ranged from 1.35 mm (± 0.22) to 1.40 mm (± 0.17), on the left and right sides, respectively. On the distal surfaces, the corresponding values were 1.44 mm (± 0.21) and 1.46 mm (± 0.12). No significant differences were found between measurements for right and left teeth. However, enamel thickness was significantly greater on the distal surfaces, compared with the mesial surfaces.

show abstract

“…Zilberman et al, 1990;Zilberman and Smith, 1992) and living subjects (e.g. Stroud et al, 1994;Harris et al, 2001). However, measurements from clinical radiographs are typically confined to marginal enamel from the mesial and distal interproximal regions of the crown.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enamel thickness in Asian human canines and premolars

Feeney

Zermeno

Reid

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dental enamel thickness continues to feature prominently in anthropological studies of ape and human evolution, as well as studies of preventative oral care and treatment. Traditional studies of enamel thickness require physical sectioning of teeth for linear and scaled measurements. Recent applications of microtomographic imaging allow scientists to employ larger and more diverse samples, including global samples of recent humans as well as fossil hominin teeth. Unfortunately, little is known about the degree of enamel thickness variation among human populations, particularly across the dentition. This study employed microtomography to virtually image, section, and quantify the average enamel thickness of a sample of clinically extracted Indonesian canine and premolar teeth. This virtual sample was compared to physically sectioned African and European teeth. The results demonstrate that average enamel thickness is similar among human dentitions; no significant differences were detected within tooth positions, which is surprising given developmental differences between European and African canines and premolars. When populations were combined, differences were found in average enamel thickness between maxillary and mandibular premolars, and between canines and premolars within both dental arcades. This finding is potentially due to differences in premolar morphology and a trend of increasing enamel thickness distally throughout the dentition. The finding of limited population variation within tooth positions and significant variation between tooth positions is consistent with previous two-dimensional and three-dimensional studies of human molar enamel thickness. Average enamel thickness in canines and premolars does not differ between the sexes in our sample, although male teeth tend to have larger enamel and dentine cross-sectional areas, enamel-dentine junction lengths, and bi-cervical diameters. Males have significantly greater dentine area and enamel-dentine junction length than females for maxillary canines and premolars. The results of this study suggest that enamel thickness values in mixed-populations of humans are appropriate for comparisons with fossil hominins.

show abstract

Sexual dimorphism in mesiodistal dentin and enamel thickness.

Cited by 85 publications

References 10 publications

Molar Odontometrics In Gender Assessment – A Panoramic Radiographic Study.

Molar Odontometrics In Gender Assessment – A Panoramic Radiographic Study.

Crown dimensions and proximal enamel thickness of mandibular second bicuspids

Enamel thickness in Asian human canines and premolars

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About