Türk yetişkinlerde mandibula açısal parametrelerinden cinsiyet tahmini

Abstract

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 independent samples t-testi kullanıldı. Bunun yanı sıra açıların cinsiyet tanısındaki başarıları stepwise linear canonical discriminant analizi ile incelendi. İstatistik anlamlılık düzeyi olarak p<0,05 kabul edildi Bulgular: Mandibula açısal parametrelerinin ölçümlerini ve yaşı cinsiyet grupları arasında karşılaştırdığımızda, sol Go açı (p=0,026), mentomandibular açı (p=0,007), sağ β açı (p=0,002), sağ α açı (p=0,001), sol α açısı (p=0,009) ve yaş (p=0,014) değerinin anlamlı farklılık gösterdiği geriye kalan 5 açının benzer olduğu görüldü (p>0,05). 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 diskriminant 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 bulduk. Sonuçlar: 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.

Keywords

• açısal parametreler
• Cinsiyet
• Cranium
• mandibula
• tomografi

Gender estimation from angular parameters of mandible in Turkish adults

Abstract

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 p<0.05. Results: When we compare mandible angular parameters and age measurements between gender groups, left Go angle (p=0.026), mentomandibular angle (p=0.007), right β angle (p=0.002), right α angle (p=0.001), left α angle (p=0.009) and age (p=0.014) values differed significantly, and the remaining 5 angles were similar (p>0.05). 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.

Keywords

• angular parameters
• cranium
• gender
• mandible
• tomography

References

1. 1. M.F. Popa CLS, P.D. Corici. Forensic value of mandibular anthropometry in gender and age estimation Rom J Leg Med. 2009;17(1):45-50.
2. 2. Indira A, Markande A, David M. Mandibular ramus: An indicator for sex determination - A digital radiographic study. Journal of forensic dental sciences. 2012;4:58-62.
3. 3. Sharma M, Gorea R, Gorea A, Abuderman A. A morphometric study of the human mandible in Indian populations for sex determination. Egyptian Journal of Forensic Science. 2015;104.
4. 4. Robinson MS, Bidmos MA. The skull and humerus in the determination of sex: Reliability of discriminant function equations. Forensic Science International. 2009;186(1):86.e81-86.e85.
5. 5. G V, J A. Sex Determination of Human Mandible Using Metrical Parameters. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR. 2013;7:2671-2673.
6. 6. Naikmasur VG, Shrivastava R, Mutalik S. Determination of sex in South Indians and immigrant Tibetans from cephalometric analysis and discriminant functions. Forensic Science International. 2010;197(1):122.e121-122.e126.
7. 7. Steyn M, Işcan MY. Metric sex determination from the pelvis in modern Greeks. Forensic Sci Int. 2008;179(1):86.e81-86.
8. 8. Apaydın B, İçöz D, Yasar F, Akgunlu F. Evaluation of Mandibular Anatomical Formation for Gender Determination in Turkish Population. Balkan Journal of Dental Medicine. 2018;22:133-137.

9. 9. Kharoshah M, Almadani O, Ghaleb S, Zaki M, Fattah Y. Sexual dimorphism of the mandible in a modern Egyptian population. Journal of forensic and legal medicine. 2010;17:213-215.
10. 10. Kumar M, Lokanadham D. Sex determination AND morphometric parameters of human mandible. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 2013;1:93.
11. 11. Kallalli B, Rawson K, Ramaswamy V, Zakarneh W, 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;28:7.
12. 12. Amin WM. Osteometric Assessment of Various Mandibular Morphological Traits for Sexual Dimorphism in Jordanians by Discriminant Function Analysis. International Journal of Morphology. 2018 36(2):642-650.
13. 13. Kim Y, Kang S, Sun H. Cephalometric Angular Measurements of the Mandible Using Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography Scans in Koreans. Archives of Plastic Surgery. 2016;43:32.
14. 14. Senn DR, Stimson PG. Forensic Dentistry. 2nd ed: CRC Press; 2010.
15. 15. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am. 2008;52(4):707-730, v.
16. 16. Howerton W, Mora M. Advancements in digital imaging: What is new and on the horizon? Journal of the American Dental Association (1939). 2008;139 Suppl:20S-24S.
17. 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. 18. Nikneshan S, Aval S, Bakhshalian N, Shahab S, Mohammadpour M, Sarikhani S. Accuracy of linear measurement using cone-beam computed tomography at different reconstruction angles. Imaging science in dentistry. 2014;44:257-262.
19. 19. 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.e81-85.
20. 20. Pakdeewong N, Sudwan P. Gender differences in Thai mandibles using metric analysis. Chiang Mai Med J. 2009;48.
21. 21. Anupam Datta SCS, Viswanathan Karibasappa Gowda, Siddesh Revapla Channabasappa, Satish Babu Banagere Shivalingappa. A Study of Sex Determination from Human Mandible Using Various Morphometrical Parameters Indian Journal of Forensic and Community Medicine. 2015;2(3):158-166
22. 22. Thakur M, Reddy KVK, 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;36:13-18.
23. 23. Chandra A, Singh A, Badni M, Jaiswal R, Agnihotri A. Determination of sex by radiographic analysis of mental foramen in North Indian population. Journal of forensic dental sciences. 2013;5(1):52-55.
24. 24. Seok H, Kim S-G, Kim M-K, Jang I, Ahn J. Effect of the masseter muscle injection of botulinum toxin A on the mandibular bone growth of developmental rats. Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2018;40(1):5-5.
25. 25. A. Meenakshi PP. Human Chewing Pattern: Prosthodontic Overview. International Journal of Oral Health and Medical Research. 2017;4(1):80-85.
26. 26. 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.
27. 27. Abu-Taleb N, El Beshlawy D. 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;06.
28. 28. 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.
29. 29. Rajalakshmi Rai AVR, Latha Venkatraya Prabhu, Mángala M. Pai, Sampath Madhyastha, Mángala Kumaran. A Pilot Study of the Mandibular Angle and Ramus in Indian Population. International Journal of Morphology. 2007;25(2):353-356.
30. 30. Dutra V, Yang J, Devlin H, Susin C. Mandibular bone remodelling in adults: evaluation of panoramic radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004;33(5):323-328.
31. 31. Pecora NG, Baccetti T, McNamara JA. The aging craniofacial complex: A longitudinal cephalometric study from late adolescence to late adulthood. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2008;134(4):496-505.
32. 32. Acar M, Alkan SB, Tolu I, Arslan FZ, Caglan F, Vermez H, et al. Morphometric Analysis of Mandibula with MDCT Method in Turkish Population. Asian J Biomed Pharmaceut Sci. 2017;7(62):13.
33. 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. 34. Humphrey LT, Dean MC, Stringer CB. Morphological variation in great ape and modern human mandibles. J Anat. 1999;195 ( Pt 4)(Pt 4):491-513.
35. 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 Science, Medicine, and Pathology. 2006;2(4):263-268.
36. 36. Kasar H ÇA, Kolusayin O. İskeletlerde Altçene Kemigi incelemeleri ile Cinsiyet Tayini Journal of Forensic Medicine. 1990;6:193-198.
37. 37. Sharma M, Gorea RK, Gorea A, Abuderman A. A morphometric study of the human mandible in the Indian population for sex determination. Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2016;6(2):165-169.
38. 38. Basavaraj N Kallalli KR, Veena Kumari Ramaswamy, Waleed HA Zakarneh, Ankur Singh, Jyoti Zingade. Sex determination of human mandible using metrical parameters by computed tomography: A prospective radiographic short study. Journal of Indian Academy of Oral Medicine & Radiology. 2016;28:7-10.
39. 39. Kharoshah MA, Almadani O, Ghaleb SS, Zaki MK, Fattah YA. Sexual dimorphism of the mandible in a modern Egyptian population. J Forensic Leg Med. 2010;17(4):213-215.
40. 40. 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.
41. 41. Rogers TL. A visual method of determining the sex of skeletal remains using the distal humerus. J Forensic Sci. 1999;44(1):57-60.