Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional study investigates the link between 2D:4D ratio and oral hygiene performance in adults, suggesting handedness may play a role.
PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between the second-to-fourth digit ratio (2D:4D), a marker of prenatal hormone exposure, and oral hygiene performance and gingival health. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 126 adults aged 18-55 years (71 males, 55 females) at Istanbul Okan University's Periodontology Clinic. Participants were classified by sex, hand dominance, and 2D:4D ratio (cut-off: 1). Oral hygiene was assessed using the Turesky Modification of the Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (QHPI) and Gingival Index (GI) at baseline and one week after standardised oral hygiene education. Finger lengths were measured to calculate 2D:4D. Statistical analyses included t-tests, repeated-measures ANOVA, Pearson's correlation, and Bonferroni post-hoc tests (α=0.05). RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in 2D:4D ratio was found between sexes (p=0.395) or hand dominance (p=0.730). QHPI and GI scores statistically significantly improved across all groups after education (p0.001). No statistically significant association was found between 2D:4D ratios and changes in QHPI or GI. However, left-handed individuals showed statistically significantly lower QHPI scores at both time points (p 0.05), and males with 2D:4D 1 reported more frequent brushing habits, though this was not reflected in clinical indices. The highest GI values were observed in males with 2D:4D ≥1, while the lowest were in females with 2D:4D<1. CONCLUSIONS: The 2D:4D ratio was not a reliable predictor of oral hygiene status or gingival health. However, handedness may influence oral hygiene performance. Standardized oral hygiene education led to comparable improvements regardless of biological variability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Beşiroğlu-Turgut et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: