Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Morphometric analysis reveals equivalent postcanine tooth size between males and females, suggesting isolated linear differences do not reflect overall sexual dimorphism.
Background: Sexual dimorphism in tooth size has been assessed on radiographs, dental casts, two-dimensional image analysis, and linear measurements are evaluated in two dimensions. These approaches evaluate isolated dimensions and may not adequately represent the three-dimensional complexity of tooth morphology. This study compared conventional odontometric measurements, centroid-based size assessments, and principal component-derived multidimensional size variables to determine whether overall tooth size exhibits sexual dimorphism. Methodology: A total of 120 dental casts (60 males and 60 females) were digitized using a laser surface scanner. Anatomical and geometric landmarks were identified on three-dimensional tooth models using 3D Slicer software. Mesiodistal, buccolingual, and diagonal dimensions were calculated from landmark coordinates, and two- and three-dimensional centroid sizes were derived. Principal component analysis was used to generate integrated multidimensional size variables. Sex differences were evaluated using independent Student’s t-tests, two one-sided tests (TOST) for equivalence, and random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Principal component analysis showed that conventional odontometric measurements and centroid sizes represented a common multidimensional size construct, explaining 79.1–91.3% of the variance across most tooth types. Centroid size demonstrated the highest component loadings, and principal component-derived variables correlated strongly with centroid size (r = 0.945–0.994; p < 0.001). No significant sex differences were observed for any principal component-derived size variable (p > 0.05). Equivalence testing and pooled meta-analysis demonstrated practical and statistical equivalence between males and females across principal component-derived variables, centroid sizes, and conventional odontometric measurements (all TOST p < 0.001). Conclusions: Conventional odontometric measurements, centroid sizes, and principal component-derived variables capture a common multidimensional construct of tooth size. Although isolated dimensions may differ, overall tooth size is practically equivalent between males and females.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Natarajan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: