Table 2.

Literature review summary.

SN	Authors	Year	Research findings	Remark
01	Saloni, Pradhuman V, P Mahajan, Ankush, Sukhleen Kaur, and Sakshi [16]	2020	Three parameters out of five mandible ramus variables studied showed statistically (p < 0.05) significant differences in gender	Mandible ramus may be used as an alternate tool in determining gender based on OPG
02	Poornima V, Surekha, Venkateswara Rao, G. Deepthi, Naveen S, and Arun Kumar [17]	2020	Right and left permanent mandible teeth were evaluated in OPG using the Camerier technique	High accuracy is achieved based on the Camerier method applied from an Indian-specific formula
03	A Okkesim and S Erhamza [18]	2020	The average value in min ramus width for males is 31.7 mm and for females is 29 mm. The average projection height value of ramus in females is measured 53.9 mm and in males is 48 mm	Mandible ramus in CBCT-based model exhibits significant differences in gender determination
04	N Vila, R. R. Vilas, and M. J. Carreira [19]	2020	Gender is evaluated based on DASNet and VVG 16 architecture	Accuracy of gender classification is 83% for DASNet and 90% for VGG-16
05	Vathsala Patil, Ravindranath, Saumya, Adithya, and Namesh [20]	2020	Gender determination based on mandible parameters using a logistic regression technique	In discriminant analysis, accuracy is 69%, in logistic regression, accuracy is 70%, and ANN shows the highest accuracy of 75%
06	J Albernaz, Nathalie A, Ferreira, Vanessa, and Proença [21]	2020	Teeth cast was used for the experimental procedure. Mesiodistal width of Rt. 1st molar to Lt. 1st molar was measured on each cast	Gender determination was classified with accuracy of 75%
07	Dalessandri D, Ingrid Tonni, Laura L, Marco Migliorati, Gaetano I, LVisconti, Stefano B, and C Paganelli [22]	2020	Reliability and accuracy of OPG versus CBCT for determination of age and gender	CBCT was found to be accurate when compared with OPG images in prediction
08	Stella A and Thirumalai [23]	2020	Tooth was divided into different stages starting from A stage to H stage	Individual age assessment using the Demirjian and the Nolla methods
09	Ahima Bali Behl [24]	2020	Measurement of bicondylar breadth (BB), gonial angle measurement, antegonial angle (AGA), ramus height, and ramus breadth (RHRB)	Upper and lower breadths of ramus were calculated. Ramus condylar height and coronoid height were measured appropriately
10	Vanessa M A, Rocharles, Andreia D'Souza, Casimiro, Andrea, Francisco C, and Deborah Q Eduardo Jr. [25]	2019	Equations for prediction of age and gender using pulp volumes from upper canine and upper central incisor	High accuracy can be achieved by using this formula when it is applied to pulp volume
11	Wallraff Sarah, Vesal Sulaiman, Syben Christopher, Lutz Rainer, and Maier Andreas [15]	2021	Unisex and sex-specific approaches based on deep learning methods achieve better results on the test data set	Male gender is slightly estimated younger than female gender