International Journal of Legal Medicine

, Volume 132, Issue 3, pp 843–851 | Cite as

Discriminant analysis of mandibular measurements for the estimation of sex in a modern Brazilian sample

  • Thais Torralbo Lopez-Capp
  • Christopher Rynn
  • Caroline Wilkinson
  • Luiz Airton Saavedra de Paiva
  • Edgard Michel-Crosato
  • Maria Gabriela Haye Biazevic
Original Article


The present study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of mandibular measurements for sex determination in a Brazilian population. The sample was composed of 100 mandibles, of which 53 were female and 47 were male, and the average age was 57.03 years. The mandible measurement protocol was composed of 15 measurements, of which six were bilateral and nine were unique. Mandibles were directly measured using a digital caliper and a protractor. The descriptive analysis of the present study revealed higher mean values for male mandibles compared to those for female mandibles with the exception of the left mandibular angle. Among the 21 measures analyzed in this group, 15 were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Univariate discriminant analyses produced a mean percentage of correct predictions that varied between 49 and 79%. The association of variables increased the percentage of correct prediction of sex to vary from 76 to 86%. The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis indicated that the best variable for estimating sex was bigonial breadth (BGB; area under the ROC curve (AUC) = 0.764) followed by the right maximum ramus height (MRHr; AUC = 0.763). A reference table for estimating sex in a Brazilian population using mandible measurements was developed based on the ROC curve analysis. Mandibular measures provide a simple and reliable method for sex discrimination in Brazilian adults due to the sexual dimorphism revealed by analysis of the metric variables and the satisfactory results demonstrated by discriminant formulas, ROC curve analysis, and the reference table.


Forensic anthropology Human identification Sex determination by skeleton Forensic dentistry Mandible 



This investigation was funded by the State of São Paulo’s Research Fund (FAPESP, process numbers 2014/13340-7, 2014/23727-6 and 2011/18577-7).

Compliance with ethical standards

This investigation was conducted in accordance with the international and national parameters of ethical investigations of human beings. The investigation protocol was submitted and approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of São Paulo’s School of Dentistry (FOUSP), process number 1.556.080.


  1. 1.
    Krishan K, Chatterjee PM, Kanchan T, Kaur S, Baryah N, Singh RK (2016) A review of sex estimation techniques during examination of skeletal remains in forensic anthropology casework. Forensic Sci Int 261:165.e161–165.e168. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Plavcan JM (2001) Sexual dimorphism in primate evolution. Am J Phys Anthropol 116(S33):25–53. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frayer DW, Wolpoff MH (1985) Sexual dimorphism. Annu Rev Anthropol 14(1):429–473. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Torimitsu S, Makino Y, Saitoh H, Sakuma A, Ishii N, Yajima D, Inokuchi G, Motomura A, Chiba F, Yamaguchi R, Hashimoto M, Hoshioka Y, Iwase H (2015) Morphometric analysis of sex differences in contemporary Japanese pelves using multidetector computed tomography. Forensic Sci Int 257:530.e531–530.e537. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Franklin D, Cardini A, Flavel A, Marks MK (2014) Morphometric analysis of pelvic sexual dimorphism in a contemporary Western Australian population. Int J Legal Med 128(5):861–872. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Franklin D, Cardini A, Flavel A, Kuliukas A (2013) Estimation of sex from cranial measurements in a Western Australian population. Forensic Sci Int 229(1–3):158 e151–158 e158. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saini V, Srivastava R, Rai RK, Shamal SN, Singh TB, Tripathi SK (2011) An osteometric study of northern Indian populations for sexual dimorphism in craniofacial region. J Forensic Sci 56(3):700–705. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ekizoglu O, Hocaoglu E, Inci E, Can IO, Solmaz D, Aksoy S, Buran CF, Sayin I (2016) Assessment of sex in a modern Turkish population using cranial anthropometric parameters. Legal Med 21:45–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Giles E (1964) Sex determination by discriminant function analysis of the mandible. Am J Phys Anthropol 22(2):129–135. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kharoshah MA, Almadani O, Ghaleb SS, Zaki MK, Fattah YA (2010) Sexual dimorphism of the mandible in a modern Egyptian population. J Forensic Legal Med 17(4):213–215. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dong HM, Deng MH, Wang WP, Zhang J, Mu J, Zhu GH (2015) Sexual dimorphism of the mandible in a contemporary Chinese Han population. Forensic Sci Int 255:9–15. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martin DC, Danforth ME (2009) An analysis of secular change in the human mandible over the last century. Am J Hum Biol 21(5):704–706. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martin ES (1936) A study of and Egyptian series of mandibles, with special reference to mathematical methods of sexing. Biometrika 28:149–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carvalho SPM, Brito LM, de Paiva LAS, Bicudo LAR, Crosato EM, de Oliveira RN (2013) Validation of a physical anthropology methodology using mandibles for gender estimation in a Brazilian population. J Appl Oral Sci 21(4):358–362. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tunis TS, Sarig R, Cohen H, Medlej B, Peled N, May H (2017) Sex estimation using computed tomography of the mandible. Int J Legal Med:1–10.
  16. 16.
    Cattaneo C (2007) Forensic anthropology: developments of a classical discipline in the new millennium. Forensic Sci Int 165(2–3):185–193. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kranioti E, Paine R (2011) Forensic anthropology in Europe: an assessment of current status and application. J Anthropol Sci 89:71–92. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Milroy CM (1999) Forensic taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains. BMJ 319(7207):458–458CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Standring S (2008) Gray’s anatomy—the anatomical basis of clinical practice, 40th edn. Churchill Livingstone, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    İlgüy D, İlgüy M, Ersan N, Dölekoğlu S, Fişekçioğlu E (2014) Measurements of the foramen magnum and mandible in relation to sex using CBCT. J Forensic Sci 59(3):601–605. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sharma M, Gorea RK, Gorea A, Abuderman A (2016) A morphometric study of the human mandible in the Indian population for sex determination. Egypt J Forensic Sci 6(2):165–169. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vinay G, Mangala Gowri SR, Anbalagan J (2013) Sex determination of human mandible using metrical parameters. J Clin Diagn Res 7(12):2671–2673. Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sierp I, Henneberg M (2015) The difficulty of sexing skeletons from unknown populations. J Anthropol 2015:13. Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Franklin D, O'Higgins P, Oxnard CE (2008) Sexual dimorphism in the mandible of indigenous South Africans: a geometric morphometric approach. S Afr J Sci 104:101–106Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Oettlé AC, Pretorius E, Steyn M (2005) Geometric morphometric analysis of mandibular ramus flexure. Am J Phys Anthropol 128(3):623–629. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nicholson E, Harvati K (2006) Quantitative analysis of human mandibular shape using three-dimensional geometric morphometrics. Am J Phys Anthropol 131(3):368–383. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Walker PL (2008) Sexing skulls using discriminant function analysis of visually assessed traits. Am J Phys Anthropol 136(1):39–50. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ogawa Y, Imaizumi K, Miyasaka S, Yoshino M (2013) Discriminant functions for sex estimation of modern Japanese skulls. J Forensic Legal Med 20(4):234–238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gapert R, Black S, Last J (2009) Sex determination from the foramen magnum: discriminant function analysis in an eighteenth and nineteenth century British sample. Int J Legal Med 123(1):25–33. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Franklin D, Freedman L, Milne N (2005) Sexual dimorphism and discriminant function sexing in indigenous South African crania. HOMO J Comp Hum Biol 55(3):213–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dayal MR, Spocter MA, Bidmos MA (2008) An assessment of sex using the skull of black South Africans by discriminant function analysis. HOMO - Journal of Comparative Human Biology 59(3):209–221. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Guyomarc’h P, Bruzek J (2011) Accuracy and reliability in sex determination from skulls: a comparison of Fordisc® 3.0 and the discriminant function analysis. Forensic Sci Int 208(1–3):180.e181–180.e186. Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Soficaru A, Constantinescu M, Culea M, Ionică C (2014) Evaluation of discriminant functions for sexing skulls from visually assessed traits applied in the Rainer Osteological Collection (Bucharest, Romania). HOMO J Comp Hum Biol 65(6):464–475. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lopez TT, Michel-Crosato E, Benedicto EN, Paiva LA, Silva DC, Biazevic MG (2017) Accuracy of mandibular measurements of sexual dimorphism using stabilizer equipment. Braz Oral Res 31:e1. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thais Torralbo Lopez-Capp
    • 1
  • Christopher Rynn
    • 2
  • Caroline Wilkinson
    • 3
  • Luiz Airton Saavedra de Paiva
    • 4
  • Edgard Michel-Crosato
    • 1
  • Maria Gabriela Haye Biazevic
    • 1
  1. 1.Community Dentistry Deparment, School of DentistryUniversity of São Paulo (FOUSP)São PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Center of Anatomy and Human Identification (CAHID)University of DundeeDundeeUK
  3. 3.Liverpool School of Art and DesignLiverpool John Moores UniversityLiverpoolUK
  4. 4.Institute of Teaching and Research in Forensic Sciences (IEPCF)GuarulhosBrazil

Personalised recommendations