Evaluation of sexual dimorphism in arch depth and palatal depth in 500 young adults of Marathwada region, India


Pritam Mankapure
Suresh Barpande
Jyoti Bhavthankar


Context: In exhibiting gender dimorphism, the bony pelvis and skull give the most reliable results from morphometric analysis. Palatal dimensions were reported to exhibit racial difference and sexual dimorphism in several studies. Aim: The aim of the present study was to measure the maxillary arch depth and palatal depth in Indian population to assess their use as a tool for sexual dimorphism. Materials and Methods: Two hundred and fifty males and 250 females in the age group of 17–25 years were enrolled in the study, and impressions of maxillary arch were made. Measurement of palatal depth and maxillary arch depth was carried out at specific reference points using Korkhaus compass and digital caliper, respectively. The comparison of maxillary arch depth and palatal depth values was done using independent t-test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Diagnostic performance of significantly different variable was quantified by plotting “receiver operating characteristic” (ROC) curve. Results: Arch depth mean values were significantly higher in males than females. However, palatal depth mean values, though higher in males, were not significant. Area under the curve in ROC curve for maxillary arch depth was found to be 0.76, indicating sufficiency of discriminatory power of this variable. Conclusion: The present study showed that maxillary arch depth can be used as a tool for sex determination along with other morphometric methods. Mean value of both maxillary arch depth and palatal depth can be used as the baseline value for given population to be used as a reference for further studies.


How to Cite
Pritam Mankapure, Suresh Barpande, & Jyoti Bhavthankar. (2017). Evaluation of sexual dimorphism in arch depth and palatal depth in 500 young adults of Marathwada region, India. Journal of Forensic Dental Sciences, 9(3), 153–156. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfo.jfds_13_16


  1. Gill-King H. Forensic anthropology. In: Senn DR, Stimson PG, editors. Forensic Dentistry. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group; 2010. p. 137-58.
  2. Suazo GI, Zavando MD, Smith RL. Accuracy of palate shape as sex indicator in human skull with maxillary teeth loss. Int J Morphol 2008;26:989-93.
  3. Brothwell DR. Dental Anthropology. London: Pergamon Press; 1963.
  4. Krogman WM, Iscan MY. The human skeleton. In: Forensic Medicine. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publishers; 1986.
  5. Sumati, Patnaik VV, Phatak A. Determination of sex from hard palate by discriminant function analysis. Int J Basic Appl Med Sci 2012;2:243-51.
  6. Burris BG, Harris EF. Identification of race and sex from palate dimensions. J Forensic Sci 1998;43:959-63.
  7. Rogers TL. Determining the sex of human remains through cranial morphology. J Forensic Sci 2005;50:493-500.
  8. Bigoni L, Velemínská J, Bruzek J. Three-dimensional geometric morphometric analysis of cranio-facial sexual dimorphism in a Central European sample of known sex. Homo 2010;61:16-32.
  9. Barrett MJ, Brown T, Macdonald MR. Size of dental arches in a tribe of Central Australian aborigines. J Dent Res 1965;44:912-20.
  10. Bottyan OL. Variations of the palatum with respect to sexual dimorphism. Ann Hist Nat Mus Nationalis Hung 1970;62:393-404.
  11. Abd‑el Samad Younes S. Maxillary arch dimensions in Saudi and Egyptian population sample. Am J Orthod 1984;85:83-8.
  12. Younes S, el Angbawi MF, al Dosari AM. A comparative study of palatal height in a Saudi and Egyptian population. J Oral Rehabil 1995;22:391-5.
  13. Wood JK. Direction and type of the transverse palatine suture and its relation to the form of the hard palate. Am J Phys Anthropol 1949;7:385-99.
  14. Jacobson A. The Dentition of the South African Negro. Birmingham: UAB School of Dentistry Publishers; 1982.
  15. Byers SN, Churchill SE, Curran B. Identification of Euro‑Americans, Afro-Americans, and Amerindians from palatal dimensions. J Forensic Sci 1997;42:3-9.
  16. Burris BG, Harris EF. Maxillary arch size and shape in American blacks and whites. Angle Orthod 2000;70:297-302.
  17. Lindsten R, Ogaard B, Larsson E, Bjerklin K. Transverse dental and dental arch depth dimensions in the mixed dentition in a skeletal sample from the 14th to the 19th century and Norwegian children and Norwegian Sami children of today. Angle Orthod 2002;72:439-48.
  18. Louly F, Nouer PR, Janson G, Pinzan A. Dental arch dimensions in the mixed dentition: A study of Brazilian children from 9 to 12 years of age. J Appl Oral Sci 2011;19:169-74.
  19. Macaluso PJ Jr. Sex discrimination potential of permanent maxillary molar cusp diameters. J Forensic Odontostomatol 2010;28:22-31.
  20. Scheuer L. Application of osteology to forensic medicine. Clin Anat 2002;15:297-312.
  21. Gentry Steele D, Bramblett CA. The skull. In: The Anatomy and Biology of the Human Skeleton. Texas: A & M University Press; 1988. p. 53-4.
  22. Bibby RE. A cephalometric study of sexual dimorphism. Am J Orthod 1979;76:256-9.
  23. Vasudeva N, Choudhry R. Precondylar tubercles on the basiocciput of adult human skulls. J Anat 1996;188:207-10.
  24. Wei SH. Craniofacial width dimensions. Angle Orthod 1970;40:141-7.
  25. Al-Khateeb SN, Abu Alhaija ES. Tooth size discrepancies and arch parameters among different malocclusions in a Jordanian sample. Angle Orthod 2006;76:459-65.
  26. Hassanali J, Odhiambo JW. Analysis of dental casts of 6‑8‑ and 12-year-old Kenyan children. Eur J Orthod 2000;22:135-42.
  27. Lustres‑Perez V, Rodrıguez ‑ Alvarez M X, Fernandez-Pulpeiro1 MP, Cadarso-Suarez C. Application of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methodology in biological studies on marine resources: Sex determination of Paracentrotus lividus (Lamarck, 1816). Stat Oper Res Trans 2010;34:239-48.