Mandibular Ramus as a Strong Expressor of Sex Determinations: A Digital Radiographic Study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of mandibular ramus in gender identification in Haryana population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred patients were assessed. Panoramic radiological examination was done. Following parameters were recorded: MAX. RM. WDTH (Maximum ramus breadth), MIN. RM. WDTH (Minimum ramus breadth), CND. HGT. RM (Condylar height), PRJ. HGT. RM (Projective height of the ramus), and CRND. HGT. RM (Coronoid height). All the results were recorded in Microsoft excel sheet and were analyzed by SPSS software version 16.0.
RESULTS: There is significant difference found in males and females in maximum ramus width, minimum ramus width, condylar height, and coronoid height and between male and females in condylar height and coronoid height. Furthermore, there was statistical significant difference between male and females in coronoid height.
CONCLUSION: Mandibular ramus can be used for gender assessment as a part of forensic investigation. Copyright:

INTRODUCTION

The branch of physical anthropology in the specialty in which data criteria; and methods are used to identify the sex, age, genetic inhabitants, or origin of skeletal materials in relation of civil or criminal law.[1] The identification of sex is among the imperative feature of forensic anthropology and essential legal investigations.[2] The hard tissues are most supportive in gender identification. Mandible is a realistic tool to scrutinize sexual dimorphism in the disjointed bones.[123]

In forensic science, the mandible is the biggest facial bone, also retains its shape compared to other bones. Ramus of the mandibular arch could differentiate between genders, as the levels of mandibular growth and development are remarkably dissimilar in the sexes.[4567] Masticatory forces exerted vary from males to females, which is responsible for the shape of the mandibular ramus. In forensic investigations, differentiation of antemortem and postmortem images is one of the marks of positive determination of human relics.[8910] Hence, this study aimed to assess the usefulness of mandibular ramus in sex identification in Haryana population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted on the patients of Haryana population who were routinely reporting for treatment to the Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology of Maharishi Markandeshwar College of Dental Sciences and Research, Mullana, Ambala, Haryana, India. One hundred subjects within the age range of 20–60 years were enrolled. Among these 100 subjects, 50 were male while the remaining 50 were female. After the completion of the case history and examination subjects were taken for radiographic procedure. Calculations were done on the standardized digital panoramic radiograph on the basis of criteria enumerated previously in the literature (Saini et al.)[2]

Following measurements were made on radiographs:

MAX. RM. WDTH (Maximum ramus breadth)

MIN. RM. WDTH (Minimum ramus breadth)

CND. HGT. RM (Condylar height)

PRJ. HGT. RM (Projective height of the ramus)

CRND. HGT. RM (Coronoid height).

Orthopantomographic printouts were covered with acetate tracing paper and attached by cello-tape with the help of scissors. The following terms were followed throughout the study:

Maximum ramus breadth: The distance between the most anterior point on the mandibular ramus and a line connecting the most posterior point on the condyle and the angle of the jaw

Minimum ramus breadth: Smallest anterior-posterior diameter of the ramus

Condylar height: Height of the ramus of the mandible from the superior point on the mandibular condyle to the protruding portion of the inferior border of the ramus

Projective height of the ramus: Between the highest point of the mandibular condyle and lower margin of the jaw

Coronoid height: Distance between coronion and lower wall of the bone.

All the results were recorded in Microsoft excel sheet and were analyzed by SPSS software version 16.0 (IBM, Armonk, New York).

RESULTS

There was significant difference found in males and females in maximum ramus width, minimum ramus width, condylar height, and coronoid height with the P = 0.02, 0.006, 0.000, and 0.000, respectively as shown in Table 1. There was no statistical significance found between males and females in projective height of ramus. The mean value of males and females in maximum ramus width, minimum ramus width, condylar height, projective height of ramus, and coronoid height were 38.4300 ± 3.18 and 36.4083 ± 2.80, 33.7408 ± 3.56 and 30.6900 ± 2.44, 74.5992 ± 5.70 and 66.4758 ± 3.59, 24.6154 ± 2.10 and 23.7500 ± 2.7 and 82.0321 ± 6.03 and 74.8392 ± 4.71 with the P values of 0.107, 0.21, 0.000, 0.379, and 0.003, respectively. There was statistical significant difference between male and females in condylar height and coronoid height as shown in Table 2. However, no statistical significance found between male and females in maximum ramus width, minimum ramus width and projective height of the ramus. The mean value of males and females in maximum ramus width, minimum ramus width, condylar height, projective height of ramus, and coronoid height was 37.2542 ± 4.68 and 35.2138 ± 5.05, 34.8900 ± 3.62 and 32.3969 ± 3.83, 71.5233 ± 6.16 and 63.8254 ± 5.12, 22.1667 ± 1.26 and 21.6154 ± 0.96 and 80.5142 ± 5.01 and 70.8123 ± 5.08 with the P values of 0.307, 0.109, 0.002, 0.230, and 0.000, respectively. The mean value of males and females in maximum ramus width, minimum ramus width, condylar height, projective height of ramus, and coronoid height was 37.9854 ± 5.11 and 37.1242 ± 4.13, 33.4892 ± 3.92 and 32.2183 ± 3.11, 72.9515 ± 6.10 and 67.6125 ± 5.23, 22.7692 ± 1.58 and 22.2500 ± 1.13 and 84.7615 ± 6.27 and 75.9433 ± 6.29 with the P values of 0.650, 0.382, 0.02, 0.361 and 0.002, respectively (P < 0.05). The mean value of males and females in maximum ramus width, minimum ramus width, condylar height, projective height of ramus, and coronoid height were 40.0100 ± 3.89 and 37.6708 ± 2.85, 34.8733 ± 4.61 and 33.4415 ± 2.95, 74.1058 ± 5.57 and 70.5354 ± 4.81, 23.2500 ± 1.95 and 23.5385 ± 1.76 and 80.6175 ± 5.72 and 76.3331 ± 4.68 with the P values of 0.098, 0.361, 0.99, 0.702 and 0.051, respectively. There was statistical significant difference between male and females in coronoid height as shown in Table 3 and Table 4. However, no statistical significance found between male and females in maximum ramus width, minimum ramus width, condylar height, and projective height of the ramus. There was statistical significant difference between male and females in minimum ramus width, condylar height, and coronoid height. However, no statistical significance found between male and females in maximum ramus width and projective height of the ramus.

Table 1

Comparison of digital readings in sex determination considering all the parameters

Parameters	Sex	Mean±SD	P
Digital MX.RM.WD	Male	38.4114±4.27	0.020*
	Female	36.5978±3.84
Digital MIN.RM.WD	Male	34.2230±3.87	0.006*
	Female	32.2160±3.19
Digital CND.HGT.RM	Male	73.3142±5.83	0.000*
	Female	67.1150±5.22
Digital PRJ.HGT.RM	Male	23.2200±1.94	0.258
	Female	22.7800±1.93
Digital CRND.HGT.RM	Male	82.0356±5.88	0.000*
	Female	74.4456±5.53

*Significant. SD: Standard deviation, MAX. RM. WDTH: Maximum ramus breadth, MIN. RM. WDTH: Minimum ramus breadth, CND. HGT. RM: Condylar height, PRJ. HGT. RM: Projective height of the ramus, CRND. HGT. RM: Coronoid height

Table 2

Comparison of digital readings in sex determination considering all the parameters

Group	sex	n	Mean±SD	P
21-30 years
Digital MX.RM.WD	Male	13	38.4300±3.18	0.107
	Female	12	36.4083±2.80
Digital MN.RM.WD	Male	13	33.7408±3.56	0.210
	Female	12	30.6900±2.44
Digital CND.HGT.RM	Male	13	74.5992±5.70	0.000*
	Female	12	66.4758±3.59
Digital PR.HGT.RM	Male	13	24.6154±2.10	0.379
	Female	12	23.7500±2.70
Digital CRND.HGT RM	Male	13	82.0321±6.03	0.003*
	Female	12	74.8392±4.71

*Significant. SD: Standard deviation, MAX. RM. WDTH: Maximum ramus breadth, MIN. RM. WDTH: Minimum ramus breadth, CND. HGT. RM: Condylar height, PRJ. HGT. RM: Projective height of the ramus, CRND. HGT. RM: Coronoid height

Table 3

Comparison of sex in digital readings according to (31-40 years of age) considering all the parameters

Group	sex	n	Mean±SD	P
31-40 years
Digital MX.RM.WD	Male	12	37.2542±4.68	0.307
	Female	13	35.2138±5.05
Digital MN.RM.WD	Male	12	34.8900±3.62	0.109
	Female	13	32.3969±3.83
Digital CND.HGT RM	Male	12	71.5233±6.16	0.002*
	Female	13	63.8254±5.12
Digital PR.HGT.RM	Male	12	22.1667±1.26	0.230
	Female	13	21.6154±0.96
Digital CRND.HGT RM	Male	12	80.5142±5.01	0.000*
	Female	13	70.8123±5.08

*Significant. SD: Standard deviation, MAX. RM. WDTH: Maximum ramus breadth, MIN. RM. WDTH: Minimum ramus breadth, CND. HGT. RM: Condylar height, PRJ. HGT. RM: Projective height of the ramus, CRND. HGT. RM: Coronoid height

Table 4

Comparison of sex in digital readings according to (41-50 years of age) considering all the parameters

Group	Sex	n	Mean±SD	P
41- 50 years
Digital MX.RM.WD	Male	13	37.9854±5.11	0.650
	Female	12	37.1242±4.13
Digital MN.RM.WD	Male	13	33.4892±3.92	0.382
	Female	12	32.2183±3.11
Digital CND.HGT RM	Male	13	72.9515±6.10	0.020*
	Female	12	67.6125±5.23
Digital PR.HGT.RM	Male	13	22.7692±1.58	0.361
	Female	12	22.2500±1.13
Digital CRND.HGT RM	Male	13	84.7615±6.27	0.002*
	Female	12	75.9433±6.29

*Significant. SD: Standard deviation, MAX. RM. WDTH: Maximum ramus breadth, MIN. RM. WDTH: Minimum ramus breadth, CND. HGT. RM: Condylar height, PRJ. HGT. RM: Projective height of the ramus, CRND. HGT. RM: Coronoid height

DISCUSSION

The present study emphasizes on the fact that mandibular ramus can be used in forensic analysis to establish relation between younger and older age groups. Condylar height, projective height, and coronoid height were the parameters taken into consideration which have shown statistical significant difference which was in accordance with Mohite et al.[10] performed a study on mandibles of the cadavers ranging from (20 to 69) years and said that panoramic radiographs are not appropriate means for estimation of age. On the contrary, Karaarslan et al.[11] had concluded the appropriacy in the first decade of life and least in the last decade of life using panoramic radiographs and thus concluded that images are not as accurate frontiers for age estimation.

For sex identification, the current study considered four variables which showed statistically significant differences, indicating that mandibular ramus expresses as a strong predictor for sex determination. Among all the variables of mandibular ramus, condylar height, and coronoid height demonstrated the highest sexual dimorphism which was in accordance with the previous study by Indira et al.[1]

The former studies conducted on mandible by Morant, Martin, and Hrdlicka. Humphrey et al.[12] and Rai et al.[13] have summarized the usefulness of mandible for the identification of sex. Literature quotes that there are many reasons attributed to the factors established for variation in the projective height that affect the development of bones. The previous literature has showed that skeletal characteristics vary in each patient population.[1415] The results of our study have shown no statistical significant difference between digital and tracing measurements in prediction of sex dimorphism. Thus, this study is the first one in the literature to rule out whether digital or tracing measurements are more accurate in assessing sex determination and age estimation for better forensic analysis. It is worth mentioning that condylar height, projective height, and coronoid height are the best parameters for age estimation and can be helpful in expressing mandibular ramus as the powerful tool in age estimation also. Tracing measurements could be helpful in analyzing the accuracy and can be further helpful in better forensic analysis. Damera et al. commenced a research for analyzing the ramus morphometric assessments with the help of digital orthopantomographs (OPG). They also assessed its utility in gender determination. Eighty OPGs were analyzed by the authors. They observed significant predictive value for 4 parameters. Height of the ramus exhibited maximal correlation in sexual dimorphic prediction.[16] Okkesim et al., in another previous research assessed the three dimensional models of mandible in a Turkish population and observed that all the ramus variables exhibited significant alteration of values among males and females. They came up to the conclusion that ramus could be utilized as a significant tool for gender assessment as a part of forensic investigation.[17]

CONCLUSION

Strong evidence is depicted in the present study suggesting that mandibular ramus is used for gender determination for forensic analysis. More studies are suggested to be done in future on age estimation so that mandibular ramus should be the broad frontier in forensic analysis.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.