Seda SERTEL MEYVACI, Duygu GÖLLER BULUT, Ayşe Tuğçe ÖZTÜRK KOÇAK, Handan ANKARALI

Gender Estimation from Angular Parameters of Mandible in Turkish Adults

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, mandibula morfometrisinin bir parçası olan açısal parametrelerinin cinsiyet belirlemedeki etkisinin konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi (KIBT) yardımı ile değerlendirmesi amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Araştırmamıza yaşları 18-68 yaş arasında olan 100 kadın ve 97 erkek olmak üzere toplam 197 sağlıklı yetişkin birey dahil edildi. Mandibulaya ait 10 tane açısal parametre KIBT yardımıyla değerlendirildi. Yaş ve açı ölçümlerinin her biri açısından cinsiyetlerin karşılaştırılmasında bağımsız örneklem t-testi kullanıldı. Bunun yanı sıra açıların cinsiyet tanısındaki başarıları adımsal doğrusam kanonik ayrım analizi ile incelendi. İstatistiksel anlamlılık düzeyi olarak p0,05). Yaş farklılığının etkisini gidermek için yaş dahil toplam 11 değişken modele alınarak sadece anlamlı düzeyde cinsiyet ayrımı yapabilen değişkenlerin seçilmesi ve stepwise değişken eleme yöntemi ile birlikte diskrimi- nant analizi yapıldı. Değişken elemesi sonucunda, cinsel dimorfik bulunan sağ α açı, sol Go açı, sağ β açı, sol α açı olmak üzere toplam 4 açı içeren diskriminant fonksiyonunun genel doğru sınıflama başarısını % 71,5 olarak bulundu. Sonuç: Bu çalışma mandibulanın açısal parametreleri arasında sol Go açının en yüksek olmak üzere sağ α açı, sağ β açı, sol α açılarının cinsel dimorfik özelliğe sahip olduğunu ve bu parametreleri içeren diskriminat fonksiyonu ile % 71,5 doğruluk oranı ile cinsiyet tahmini yapılabileceğini göstermiştir.

Gender Estimation from Angular Parameters of Mandible in Turkish Adults

Aim: In this study, it was aimed to evaluate the effect of angular parameters, which are a part of mandibular morphometry, on gender assessment with the help of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Material and Methods: A total of 197 healthy adults, 100 females and 97 males, aged between 18- 68 years were included in our study. Ten angular parameters of the mandible were evaluated using CBCT. Independent samples t-test was used to compare the gender for each of the age and angle measurements. In addition, the success of the angles in gender diagnosis was examined by a stepwise linear canonical differential analysis. Statistical significance level was accepted as p0.05). In order to eliminate the effect of age difference, a total of 11 variables including age were comprised in the model, and discriminant analysis was performed with the stepwise variable elimination method to select only the variables that could make significant gender discrimination. As a result of variable elimination, we found that the overall correct classification success of the discriminant function, which includes a total of 4 angles, sexually dimorphic right α angle, left Go angle, right β angle, and left α angle, was 71.5%. Conclusion: This study showed that among the angular parameters of the mandible, the left Go angle being the highest, the right α angle, right β angle and left α angles have sexual dimorphic properties, and gender estimation can be made with 71.5% overall accuracy with the discriminant function containing these parameters.

PDF

___

1. Popa FM, Stefanescu CL, Corici PD. Forensic value of mandibular anthropometry in gender and age estimation. Rom J Leg Med 2009;17(1):45-50.
2. Indira AP, Markande A, David MP. Mandibular ramus: An indicator for sex determination - A digital radiographic study. J Forensic Dent Sci 2012;4(2):58-62.
3. Sharma M, Gorea RK, Gorea A, Abuderman A. A morphometric study of the human mandible in Indian populations for sex determination. Egypt J Forensic Sci 2016;6(2):165-169.
4. Robinson MS, Bidmos MA. The skull and humerus in the determination of sex: Reliability of discriminant function equations. Forensic Sci Int 2009;186(1-3):86. e1-86. e5.
5. Vinay G, Mangala Gowri SR, Anbalagan J. Sex determination of human mandible using metrical parameters. J Clin Diagn Res 2013;7(12):2671-2673.
6. Naikmasur VG, Shrivastava R, Mutalik S. Determination of sex in South Indians and immigrant Tibetans from cephalometric analysis and discriminant functions. Forensic Sci Int 2010;197(1-3):122. e1-122. e6.
7. Steyn M, Işcan MY. Metric sex determination from the pelvis in modern Greeks. Forensic Sci Int 2008;179(1):86. e1-86. e6.
8. Apaydın B, Icoz D, Yasar F, Akgunlu F. Evaluation of mandibular anatomical formation for gender determination in Turkish population. BJDM 2018;22(3):133-137.
9. Kharoshah MAA, Almadani O, Ghaleb S, Zaki MK, Fattah YAA. Sexual dimorphism of the mandible in a modern Egyptian population. J Forensic Leg Med 2010;17(4):213-215.
10. Kumar MP, Lokanadham S. Sex determination and morphometric parameters of human mandible. Int J Res Med Sci 2013;1(2):93-96.
11. Kallalli BN, Rawson K, Ramaswamy VK, Zakarneh WH, Singh A, Zingade J. Sex determination of human mandible using metrical parameters by computed tomography: A prospective radiographic short study. JIAOMR 2016;28(1):7.
12. Amin WM. Osteometric assessment of various mandibular morphological traits for sexual dimorphism in Jordanians by discriminant function analysis. J Morphol 2018;36(2):642-650.
13. Kim YH, Kang SJ, Sun H. Cephalometric angular measurements of the mandible using three-dimensional computed tomography scans in Koreans. Arch Plast Surg 2016;43(1):32.
14. Senn DR, Stimson PG. Forensic Dentistry. 2nd ed: CRC Press; 2010.
15. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am 2008;52(4):707-730.
16. Howerton WB, Mora MA. Advancements in digital imaging: What is new and on the horizon? J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139:S20-S24.
17. Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Sanderink G. Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements obtained from cone beam computed tomography surface-rendered images for cephalometric analysis: Influence of patient scanning position. Eur J Orthod 2009;31(2):129-134.
18. Nikneshan S, Aval SH, Bakhshalian N, Shahab S, Mohammadpour M, Sarikhani S. Accuracy of linear measurement using cone-beam computed tomography at different reconstruction angles. Imaging Sci Dent 2014;44(4):257-262.
19. Acar M, Alkan SB, Tolu I, Arslan FZ, Caglan F, Vermez H, Sasmaz S, Okutan S. Morphometric analysis of mandibula with mdct method in Turkish population. Asian J Biomed Pharmaceut Sci 2017;7(62):13.
20. Franklin D, O’Higgins P, Oxnard CE, Dadour I. Discriminant function sexing of the mandible of indigenous South Africans. Forensic Sci Int 2008;179(1):84. e1-84. e5.
21. Ongkana N, Sudwan P. Gender differences in Thai mandibles using metric analysis. Chiang Mai Med J 2009;48(2):43-48.
22. Datta A, Siddappa SC, Gowda VK, Channabasappa SR, Shivalingappa SB, Dey D. A study of sex determination from human mandible using various morphometrical parameters. Indian Journal of Forensic and Community Medicine 2015;2(3):158-166.
23. Thakur M, Reddy K, Sivaranjani Y, Khaja S. Gender determination by mental foramen and height of the body of the mandible in dentulous patients a radiographic study. Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine 2014;36(1):13-18.
24. Chandra A, Singh A, Badni M, Jaiswal R, Agnihotri A. Determination of sex by radiographic analysis of mental foramen in North Indian population. J Forensic Dent Sci 2013;5(1):52-55.
25. Seok H, Kim SG, Kim MK, Jang I, Ahn J. Effect of the masseter muscle injection of botulinum toxin A on the mandibular bone growth of developmental rats. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2018;40(1):1-8.
26. Meenakshi A, Paul P. Human chewing pattern: Prosthodontic Overview. International Journal of Oral Health and Medical Research 2017;4(1):80-85.
27. Shahabi M, Ramazanzadeh BA, Mokhber N. Comparison between the external gonial angle in panoramic radiographs and lateral cephalograms of adult patients with Class I malocclusion. J Oral Sci 2009;51(3):425-429.
28. Taleb NSA, Beshlawy ME. Mandibular ramus and gonial angle measurements as predictors of sex and age in an egyptian population sample: A digital panoramic study. Journal of Forensic Research 2015;6(5):1-7.
29. Xie QF, Ainamo A. Correlation of gonial angle size with cortical thickness, height of the mandibular residual body, and duration of edentulism. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91(5):477-482.
30. Rai R, Ranade AV, Prabhu LV, Pai MM, Madhyastha S, Kumaran M. A pilot study of the mandibular angle and ramus in indian population. International Journal of Morphology 2007;25(2):353-357.
31. Dutra V, Yang J, Devlin H, Susin C. Mandibular bone remodelling in adults: Evaluation of panoramic radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004;33(5):323-328.
32. Pecora NG, Baccetti T, McNamara JA. The aging craniofacial complex: A longitudinal cephalometric study from late adolescence to late adulthood. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134(4):496-505.
33. Apaydın B, Icoz D, Yasar F, Akgunlu F. Evaluation of mandibular anatomical formation for gender determination in Turkish population. Balkan Journal of Dental Medicine 2018;22(3):133- 137.
34. Humphrey LT, Dean MC, Stringer CB. Morphological variation in great ape and modern human mandibles. J Anat 1999;195(4):491-513.
35. Franklin D, O’Higgins P, Oxnard CE, Dadour I. Determination of sex in South African Blacks by discriminant function analysis of mandibular linear dimensions. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 2006;2(4):263-268.
36. Kasar H, Çöloğlu AS, Kolusayin O. İskeletlerde altçene kemigi incelemeleri ile cinsiyet tayini. Journal of Forensic Medicine 1990;6(3-4):193-198.
37. Kallalli BN, Rawson K, Ramaswamy VK, Zakarneh WH, Singh A, Zingade J. Sex determination of human mandible using metrical parameters by computed tomography: A prospective radiographic short study. Journal of Indian Academy of Oral Medicine and Radiology 2016;28(1):7.
38. Kharoshah MAA, Almadani O, Ghaleb SS, Zaki MK, Fattah YAA. Sexual dimorphism of the mandible in a modern Egyptian population. J Forensic Leg Med 2010;17(4):213-215.
39. Tunis TS, Sarig R, Cohen H, Medlej B, Peled N, May H. Sex estimation using computed tomography of the mandible. Int J Legal Med 2017;131(6):1691-1700.
40. Rogers TL. A visual method of determining the sex of skeletal remains using the distal humerus. J Forensic Sci 1999;44(1):57- 60.