Abstract
Background:
Dental anthropology is an important aspect of bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology. In forensic anthropological studies, identifying an unknown individual from a mangled and decomposing body is a challenging task. Cranial remains are the only critical clues available for personal identification. Age, sex, and stature are significant parameters in establishing the identity of an unrecognized individual. Stature is the natural height of the individual in an upright position. Stature can be estimated from various parts of the body such as long bones, short bones, and skull. Few studies conducted in specific population have established a correlation for predicting stature from cephalometric and odontometric parameters. Thus, the present study was conducted to determine stature and gender based on cephalometric and odontometric parameters in the population of Tamil Nadu.
Aims:
The aim of this study was to investigate the possibility of predicting the stature and gender of an individual based on odontometric measurements, facial height, and bizygomatic width.
Materials and methods:
A total of seventy individuals in the age group of 18–24 years were selected for the study. The facial height, bizygomatic width and length ,mesiodistal and labiolingual diameter of clinical crown of maxillary central,lateral and canine teeth of both the right and left quadrants were measured. The values were analyzed statistically. Through this analysis, regression equations for estimation of stature from odontometric and facial index were derived.
Results:
Pearson correlation test was carried out to establish a correlation between the stature and the measured parameters. Regression analysis was carried out to establish stature from the odontometric and facial index of the individual. The regression equations were used to get estimated stature in the same sample of volunteers from which regression equations were obtained. Tabulated results showed a probable correlation between various parameters.
Conclusion:
In our study, a positive correlation between cephalometric measurements, gender, crown length of permanent left central incisor, and combined mesiodistal diameter of permanent maxillary anteriors with stature was found. This can be used as a supplementary method for estimating the stature of unknown human bodies.
KEYWORDS: Arch length, facial index, odontometric, stature and gender determination
INTRODUCTION
Stature, gender, age, and ancestry are important parameters of anthropometry, which helps to establish a biological Profile. In forensic anthropology, metric, nonmetric, and biochemical techniques are used to establish the identification of unknown human body remains. Stature is one of the distinct visible factors of an individual.[1] Sex and race determination can reduce the number of mismatches in forensic cases. Gender determination can be done by craniometry,[2] osteometry, odontometry, and DNA analysis. Although DNA analysis is the most precise method Lacks of facilities and the cost factor may be a hindrance, it is not used widely. Linear dimension method is a simple, affordable, and reliable technique, which acts as an excellent parameter.[3] This study was conducted to assess the linear dimension of the maxillary anterior teeth, facial height, and bizygomatic width as an anthropometric tool for stature and gender estimation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study was conducted in the Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research (SRIHER), Porur, Chennai. The present study was carried out after the approval from SRIHER Intuitional Ethical Committee (CSP/17/MAY/58/166). Seventy undergraduate student volunteers were participated after fulfilling the requirements.
Inclusion criteria
Volunteers with parents and grandparents of Tamil origin, healthy state of teeth and periodontium, and fully erupted permanent maxillary anteriors were included in the study.
Exclusion criteria
Abnormal aligned maxillary anteriors, orthodontic treatment, and any history of trauma were excluded from the study.
Students were informed about the nature of the study, and written informed consent was obtained. The demographic data of individuals were recorded. The height of the volunteers was measured using a wall-mounted height rod with the volunteers standing erect with the Frankfurt plane parallel to the platform. The volunteer's heels should not be raised from the platform during the recording. The morphological facial height was measured from nasion (n) to gnathion (gn) and also facial width was measured the distance between right and left zygion (zy). All odontometric measurements were measured on the cast of the same individuals. The maxillary impressions of all the volunteers were made with alginate and study models were prepared with dental stone. The mesiodistal width and clinical crown length of permanent maxillary central incisors and canine teeth were measured in cast models using electronic digital caliper (Germany) [Figure 1]. In addition, combined mesiodistal diameters of six anteriors were measured. These measurements were carried out by two investigators; Cohen's kappa value is 0.96 for the desired inter-examiner reliability. The collected data were entered in an Excel sheet and were analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 11.5 software (SPSS Inc,Chicago IL).
Figure 1.
The odontometric analysis
RESULTS
Various measurements obtained from the volunteers were used to get estimated stature using the regression equations. The mean age of the volunteers was 22.48 + 1.44 (20–24) years. The height of males varied from 163 to 187 with a mean value of 173.643 cm, in case of females 147–167 with a mean value of 159.320 and standard deviations shown in Table 1.
Table 1.
Mean and standard deviation of height of study individuals
| Gender | n | Mean | SD | SE mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Height of the individual (cm) | ||||
| 0 | 40 | 159.320 | 4.5526 | 0.7198 |
| 1 | 30 | 173.643 | 5.8371 | 1.0657 |
SD: Standard deviation, SE: Standard error
Table 2 represents mean, standard deviations of the various craniometric measurements of males and females. Based on facial index in our study population, various facial morphologies are represented in Graph 1. In odontometric analysis, crown length and mesiodistal diameter of right and left teeth were significantly greater for males than females. Summation of all anterior teeth and summation of central incisors and canines for each type of measurements were also compared between males and females, and a significant difference was observed for all cases [Table 3].
Table 2.
Mean and standard deviation of facial parameters
| Parameters | Gender | n | Mean | SD | SE mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Facial height | Female | 40 | 88.0275 | 6.19930 | 0.98019 |
| Male | 30 | 94.0600 | 6.79262 | 1.24016 | |
| Bizygomatic width | Female | 40 | 101.4875 | 7.18503 | 1.13605 |
| Male | 30 | 107.8400 | 6.55521 | 1.19681 | |
| Facial index | Female | 40 | 86.8300 | 3.86730 | 0.61147 |
| Male | 30 | 87.2640 | 4.33316 | 0.79112 |
SD: Standard deviation, SE: Standard error
Graph 1.
Various facial morphologies
Table 3.
Significance mean value of odontometric parameters
| Odontometric parameters (cm) | Male | Female | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||
| Minimum-maximum | Mean | Minimum-maximum | Mean | |
| Mesiodistal diameter of 11 | 7.4-10.5 | 8.595 | 6.89-9.66 | 8.45925 |
| Clinical crown length of 11 | 8.11-11.56 | 9.60000 | 7-10.65 | 8.92095 |
| Mesiodistal diameter of 21 | 7.24-9.98 | 8.503 | 6.89-9.66 | 8.4295 |
| Clinical crown length of 21 | 7.5-11.1 | 9.665667 | 7.31-11.4 | 9.17925 |
| Mesiodistal diameter of 13 | 6.65-11.17 | 8.002 | 6.43-9.34 | 7.63225 |
| Clinical crown length of 13 | 7.12-11.50 | 8.786667 | 6-10.12 | 8.1515 |
| Mesiodistal diameter of 23 | 6.9-9.10 | 7.92166 | 6.50-8.34 | 7.54025 |
| Clinical crown length of 23 | 6.65-11.17 | 8.769 | 5.26-9.56 | 8.14625 |
| Combined mesiodistal distance of maxillary anteriors | 41.6-52.81 | 46.76967 | 37.6-49.92 | 44.9775 |
In Tables 4a–d, multiple regression analysis showed included all the parameters of odontometric and craniometric measurements with height of the individual. R square value of this model is 0.054, Statistically significant correlation to stature.
Table 4a.
Regression analysis
| Regression analysis- | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Model | Variables entered | Variables removed | Method |
| 1 | Crown length of 23, mesiodistal diameter of 21, facial index (mm), gender, mesiodistal diameter of 13, crown length of 11, mesiodistal diameter of 23, mesiodistal diameter of 11, crown length of 13, crown length of 21, combined mesiodistal distance of maxillary anteriors | Enter | |
Table 4d.
Coefficients of dependent variable
| Model 1 | Unstandardized coefficients | Standardized coefficients | t | Significance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
||||
| B | SE | β | |||
| Constant | 121.827 | 22.275 | 5.469 | 0.000 | |
| Facial index (mm) | 0.501 | 0.256 | 0.231 | 1.961 | 0.054 |
SE: Standard error
Table 4b.
Model summary
| Model | R | R 2 | Adjusted R2 | SE of the estimate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.231 | 0.054 | 0.040 | 8.5998 |
SE: Standard error
In each model, the weakest correlation parameters were excluded. [Table 5]. Prediction of stature is done based on facial index, combined mesiodistal distance of maxillary anteriors, gender, and crown length of left maxillary central incisors (21). Tabulated results showed a probable correlation between parameters [Table 6]. The regression equations were used to get estimated stature in the same sample of volunteers from which regression equations were obtained.
Table 5.
Model of excluded parameters
| Model | Beta | t | Significance | Partial correlation | Collinearity statistics Tolerance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | ||||||
| Mesiodistal diameter of 23 | −0.004b | −0.034 | 0.973 | −0.005 | 0.365 | |
| 3 | ||||||
| Mesiodistal diameter of 23 | −0.001c | −0.013 | 0.989 | −0.002 | 0.367 | |
| Crown length of 13 | −0.030c | −0.268 | 0.790 | −0.040 | 0.340 | |
| 4 | ||||||
| Mesiodistal diameter of 23 | −0.005d | −0.044 | 0.965 | −0.007 | 0.376 | |
| Crown length of 13 | −0.020d | −0.189 | 0.851 | −0.028 | 0.380 | |
| Mesiodistal diameter of 11 | 0.023d | 0.204 | 0.839 | 0.030 | 0.321 | |
| 5 | ||||||
| Mesiodistal diameter of 23 | −0.009e | −0.083 | 0.934 | −0.012 | 0.380 | |
| Crown length of 13 | −0.012e | −0.121 | 0.904 | −0.018 | 0.392 | |
| Mesiodistal diameter of 11 | 0.029e | 0.266 | 0.792 | 0.039 | 0.330 | |
| Mesiodistal diameter of 21 | 0.048e | 0.384 | 0.702 | 0.056 | 0.261 | |
| 6 | ||||||
| Mesiodistal diameter of 23 | −0.021f | −0.217 | 0.829 | −0.031 | 0.403 | |
| Crown length of 13 | −0.035f | −0.414 | 0.681 | −0.060 | 0.565 | |
| Mesiodistal diameter of 11 | 0.025f | 0.231 | 0.818 | 0.033 | 0.331 | |
| Mesiodistal diameter of 21 | 0.053f | 0.434 | 0.666 | 0.062 | 0.263 | |
| Crown length of 23 | −0.040f | −0.565 | 0.575 | −0.081 | 0.788 | |
| 7 | ||||||
| Mesiodistal diameter of 23 | −0.005g | −0.053 | 0.958 | −0.008 | 0.416 | |
| Crown length of 13 | −0.058g | −0.795 | 0.431 | −0.113 | 0.721 | |
| Mesiodistal diameter of 11 | 0.035g | 0.321 | 0.750 | 0.046 | 0.334 | |
| Mesiodistal diameter of 21 | 0.047g | 0.385 | 0.702 | 0.055 | 0.264 | |
| Crown length of 23 | −0.047g | −0.672 | 0.505 | −0.096 | 0.800 | |
| Crown length of 11 | −0.095g | −0.918 | 0.363 | −0.130 | 0.366 | |
| 8 | ||||||
| Mesiodistal diameter of 23 | 0.033h | 0.367 | 0.715 | 0.052 | 0.501 | |
| Crown length of 13 | −0.056h | −0.758 | 0.452 | −0.107 | 0.722 | |
| Mesiodistal diameter of 11 | 0.038h | 0.350 | 0.728 | 0.049 | 0.335 | |
| Mesiodistal diameter of 21 | 0.041h | 0.332 | 0.741 | 0.047 | 0.264 | |
| Crown length of 23 | −0.032h | −0.463 | 0.645 | −0.065 | 0.831 | |
| Crown length of 11 | −0.102h | −0.997 | 0.324 | −0.140 | 0.368 | |
| Mesiodistal diameter of 13 | 0.082h | 1.017 | 0.314 | 0.142 | 0.600 |
Table 6.
Strong significant correlation parameters
| Parameters | Unstandardized coefficients | Standardized coefficients β | t | Significance | 95.0% CI for B | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
||||||
| B | SE | Lower bound | Upper bound | ||||
| Constant | 72.203 | 15.571 | 4.637 | 0.000 | 40.943 | 103.463 | |
| Facial index (mm) | 0.498 | 0.143 | 0.223 | 3.489 | 0.001 | 0.211 | 0.784 |
| Combined mesiodistal distance of maxillary anteriors | 0.571 | 0.240 | 0.187 | 2.380 | 0.021 | 0.089 | 1.052 |
| Gender | 11.343 | 1.264 | 0.626 | 8.974 | 0.000 | 8.805 | 13.880 |
| Crown length of 21 | 1.984 | 0.759 | 0.202 | 2.615 | 0.012 | 0.461 | 3.506 |
SE: Standard error, CI: Confidence interval
Table 6 shows strong significant correlation parameters.
Table 4c.
ANOVA values
| Model 1 | Sum of squares | df | Mean square | F | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression | 284.366 | 1 | 284.366 | 3.845 | 0.054b |
| Residual | 5029.004 | 68 | 73.956 | ||
| Total | 5313.370 | 69 | |||
| Dependent variable: Height of the individual (cm) Predictors: (Constant), facial index (mm) | |||||
DISCUSSION
Regression analysis is the best method for estimating stature.[4] Cranial dimensions are found to be more reliable and precise for predicting stature.[5] Population-specific studies are needed to develop the regression equation for the accuracy of stature estimation.[6] Thus, in the present study, we correlated the facial index and clinical crown dimensions of permanent maxillary anteriors with stature and explored the possibility to estimate stature from those dimensions. In the present study population, the most common shape of face in males and females is mesoprosopic followed by euryprosopic. Our findings were similar to kumar et al's and shetti et al's studies In Andhra population, males were mesoprosopic and females – euryprosopic.[8] Priyadharshini et al. reported that the dominant face types for males and females were leptoprosopic and euryprosopic, respectively, which was completely contrary to our study.[9] The variation could be attributed to a complex interaction between genetics and environmental factors.[10] The combined mesiodistal diameter of maxillary anteriors, mesiodistal, crown length of the maxillary incisors [Figure 1] and canines of males has greater value compared to females in the present study. This can be employed as authentic anthropometric tools in gender determination. Reports by several workers from different parts of India indicate that odontometric parameters is a good tool for determining sex.[3,11,12,13,14,15] In our study, when only the odontometric parameters regressed with height, a lesser statistically significant correlation was found. Therefore, odontometry parameters alone were unreliable in estimating stature, which is consistent with the research results of Kalia et al.[16] Jani has observed that maxillary intercanine width statistically significant correlation to stature.[17]
Bhayya et al. study predicted the height of individuals by regressing the craniometric and odontometric parameters, and it showed a great correlation.[18] The outcome of this study-derived regression equation of height of an individual is as follows:
Stature = Constant (72.203) +0.498 (facial index) +0.571 (combined mesiodistal distance of maxillary anteriors) +11.343 (gender) +1.984 (crown length of permanent maxillary left central incisor).
We checked the applicability and reliability of the regression by applying the equations in the same sample of volunteers Certain range (minimum)of difference has been observed between actual and estimated stature. This could be central tendency to formulate regressive equations. Further research in the sample populations residing in the different geographic zones is necessary for validation.
CONCLUSION
The present study demonstrates that the facial index, combined mesiodistal distance of maxillary anteriors, and maxillary left central incisor crown length for stature estimation were highly significant. It can be concluded that using regression formula is a quick and easy method for estimation of stature of an unknown individual in regional population.
Limitation
The study is conducted on Tamil population only. Therefore, studies in the same ethnic group of other parts of the world and different ethnic groups are required to confirm whether the craniofacial and odontometric dimensions can be used for estimation of stature elsewhere.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
- 1.Capitaneanu C, Willems G, Thevissen P. A systematic review of odontological sex estimation methods. J Forensic Odontostomatol. 2017;35:1–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Orish CN, Ibeachu PC. Craniometric indices of Nigeria skulls. Int J Anat Soc India. 2016;2:6–13. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Shireen A, Ara SA. Odontometric analysis of permanent maxillary first molar in gender determination. J Forensic Dent Sci. 2016;8:145–9. doi: 10.4103/0975-1475.195120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Krishan K, Kanchan T, Sharma A. Multiplication factor versus regression analysis in stature estimation from hand and foot dimensions. J Forensic Leg Med. 2012;19:211–4. doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2011.12.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ilayaperuma I. On the prediction of personal stature from cranial dimensions. Int J Morphol. 2010;28:1135–40. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Patil HS, Alane UY. Estimation of stature in local beed population: An odontometric approach. IOSR JDMS. 2017;16:80–4. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Kumar M, Lone MM. The study of facial index among Haryanvi adults. IJSR. 2013;2:51–2. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Shetti VR, Pai SR, Chenthan P. Study of prosopic (facial) index of Indian and Malaysian students. Int J Morphol. 2011;29:1018–21. Available from: http://eprints.manipal.edu/id/eprint/79416 . Last visit – sept 2020 Through mentioned link 2021 Jun 12. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Priyadharshini KI, Ambika M, Sekar B, Mohanbabu V, Sabarinath B, Pavithra I. Comparison of cheiloscopy, odontometric, and facial index for sex determination in forensic dentistry. J Forensic Dent Sci. 2018;10:88–91. doi: 10.4103/jfo.jfds_102_17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Hossain MZ, Munawar KM, Rahim ZH, Bakri MM. Can stature be estimated from toothcrown dimensions? A study in a sample of South-east Asians. Arch Oral Biol. 2016;64:85–91. doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2016.01.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Srivastava R, Jyoti B, Jha P, Gupta M, Devi P, Jayaram R. Gender determination from the mesiodistal dimension of permanent maxillary incisors and canines: An odontometric study. J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol. 2014;26:287–92. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Pandey N, Ma MS. Evaluation of sexual dimorphism in maxillary and mandibular canine using mesiodistal, labiolingual dimensions, and crown height. Indian J Dent Res. 2016;27:473–6. doi: 10.4103/0970-9290.195616. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Grewal DS, Khangura RK, Sircar K, Tyagi KK, Kaur G, David S. Morphometric analysis of odontometric parameters for gender determination. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11:ZC09–13. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/26680.10341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Pagare N, Chourasiya S, Dedhia H. Study of odontometric parameters in gender identification. Austin J Forensic Sci Criminol. 2017;4:1060. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Phulari RG, Rathore R, Talegaon T, Jariwala P. Comparative assessment of maxillary canine index and maxillary first molar dimensions for sex determination in forensic odontology. J Forensic Dent Sci. 2017;9:110. doi: 10.4103/jfo.jfds_4_16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Kalia S, Shetty SK, Patil K, Mahima VG. Stature estmation using odontometry and skull anthropometry. Indian J Dent Res. 2008;19:150–4. doi: 10.4103/0970-9290.40471. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Jani Y, Parikh S, Dudhia B, Bhatia P, Patel P, Patel R. Body height from tooth size: A novel study on stature estimation by odontometric parameters. J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol. 2018;30:275–80. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Bhayya H, Tejasvi ML, Pooja M, Donempudi P. Odontometric parameters for assessing stature in Nalgonda population: A cross-sectional study. IJADS. 2018;4:33–6. [Google Scholar]