Sexual dimorphism in deciduous crown traits of a European derived Australian sample

Comparison of crown width, length, width/length ratio of maxillary anterior teeth between male and female dental students

“…11 From other previous studies have also reported that the existence of significant differences between male and female's tooth size usually shows that male display 2-6% larger teeth compare to female for crown dimensions. 11,16,17 This statement can be supported by this study, the results obtained showed the mean crown width and length of male is larger compare to female.…”

“…11 From other previous studies have also reported that the existence of significant differences between male and female's tooth size usually shows that male display 2-6% larger teeth compare to female for crown dimensions. 11,16,17 Forensic science and archaeology. Sexual dimorphism in the morphometric crown traits of the deciduous dentition may be used to help resolve this issue.…”

Performance analysis of deciduous morphology for detecting biological siblings

“…Within modern humans, anthropologists have considered the utility of deciduous elements for discerning bioregional affiliation and/or ancestry (e.g., Sciulli, 1977Sciulli, , 1980Kitagawa et al, 1995;Kitagawa, 2000;Harris, 2001;Lease, 2003;Lease and Sciulli, 2005). The feasibility of using tooth size to estimate the sex of subadults has also been explored (De Vito and Saunders, 1990;Alvrus, 2000;Adler and Donlon, 2010;Cardoso, 2010;Viciano et al, 2013); this topic is of great importance to bioarchaeologists working in prehistoric contexts where subadult (skeletal) sex is often elusive. Recent paleoanthropological literature has examined deciduous crown morphology and shape (e.g., Benazzi et al, 2011Benazzi et al, , 2012 or differential rates of primary and overall dental development (e.g., Bayle et al, 2009Bayle et al, , 2010de Castro et al, 2010;Smith et al, 2010) as features distinguishing hominin taxa.…”

Further developments in molecular sex assignment: a blind test of 18th and 19th century human skeletons

“…Skeletal sexual dimorphism in humans is poorly developed prior to puberty and sex determination of juveniles is notoriously difficult. Despite this underlying problem, there have been numerous attempts to develop criteria that can be used to determine the sex of juveniles from the skeleton (Weaver, 1980;Rosing, 1983;Schutkowski, 1993;Molleson et al, 1998;Loth and Henneberg, 2001;Veroni et al, 2010) or dentition (Ditch and Rose, 1972;Black, 1978;Cardoso, 2008;Adler and Donlon, 2010). Published methods generally have a success rate of between seventy and ninety percent for the population on which they were developed and objective shape based methods can achieve and accuracy of up to 96% (Wilson et al, 2008).…”