Type of Article:  Original Research

Volume 5; Issue 4.2 (November 2017)

Page No.: 4611-4615

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2017.419


Babita Kujur 1, Naina S. Wakode *2, Manisha R. Gaikwad 3,  Santosh L. Wakode 4.

1 Senior resident, Department of Anatomy, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, India.

*2 Associate Professor, Department of Anatomy, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, India.

3 Additional Professor & Head, Department of Anatomy, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, India.

4 Associate Professor, Department of Physiology, AIIMS, Bhopal, India.

Address for Correspondence: Dr. Naina S. Wakode, Associate Professor, Department of Anatomy, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, India. E-Mail: nainawakode@gmail.com


Background: The determination of sex from human skeletal material is of fundamental importance for any forensic investigator. Sexual dimorphism refers to the differences in size, stature, and appearance between male and female. The mandible is considered suitable for study as it is the most durable bone of the face and has got sexual dimorphism. So the present study was done to determine the usefulness of mandible as an aid in sex determination.

Materials and methods: The present study was done on 47 mandibles (22 males and 25 females) from department of Anatomy, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, to find out the most reliable metric parameter in mandible to determine the sex of an unidentified individual.

Results: In our study we found that the angle of the mandible, bigonial breadth and bicondylar breadth were the most reliable parameters. The mean value of angle of the mandible, bigonial and bicondylar breadth in male was 126.73±2.71, 94.69±2.46, 111.20±5.73mm respectively and in female135.42±2.58, 88.27±7.84, 107.89±4.03mm with p value 0.0001, 0.0006 and 0.0287 respectively.

Conclusion: This study may help in identifying the sex of mutilated and unidentified bodies when combined with some other criteria used for sex determination.

Keywords: Angle of mandible, bigonial breadth, bicondylar breadth, sexual dimorphism.


  1. Ongkana N, Sudwan P. Gender difference in Thai mandibles using metric analysis. Chiang Mai Med J 2009; 48(2):43–8.
  2. Franklin, O.P. Higgins, C.E. Oxnard Sexual dimorphism in the mandible of indigenous South Africans: a geometric morphometric approach S Afr J Sci, 2008;104(3):101-109.
  3. M. Fabian, R.M pembeni Sexual dimorphism in the mandibles of a homogenous black population of Tanzania Tan J Sci, 2002;28(2):4753.
  4. Vodanovic, J. Dumancic, Z. Demo, D. MihelicDetermination of sex by discriminant function analysis of mandibles from two Croatian archeological sitesActa Stomatol Croat, 2006;40(3):263-277.
  5. Susan Standring Gray’s Anatomy: the anatomical basis of clinical practice, 40th ed., London Churchill Livingstone Elsevier 2008, pp 530-532.
  6. Rai R, Ranade AV, Prabhu LV, Pai MM, Madhyastha S,Kumaran M. A pilot study of the mandibular angle and ramus in Indian population. Int J Morphol 2007;25(2):353–6.
  7. Noha Saleh Abu-Taleb and Dina Mohamed El Beshlawy Mandibular Ramus and Gonial Angle Measurements as Predictors of Sex and Age in an Egyptian Population Sample: A Digital Panoramic Study. J Forensic Res 2015;6:5.
  8. Anupam Datta, Santhosh Chandrappa Siddappa, Viswanathan Karibasappa Gowda, Siddesh Revapla Channabasappa, Satish BabBanagere Shivalingappa, Srijith, Debaleena Dey; A Study of Sex Determination from Human Mandible Using Various Morphometrical Parameters. Indian Journal of Forensic and Community Medicine, July – September 2015;2(3):158-166.
  9. Kharoshah MA, Almadani O, Ghaleb SS, Zaki MK, Fattah YA. Sexual dimorphism of the mandible in a modern Egyptian population. J Forensic Leg Med 2010;17:213-215.
  10. Akhlaghi M, Khalighi Z, Vasigh S, Yousefinejad V. Sex determination using mandibular anthropometric parameters in subadult Iranian samples. J Forensic Leg Med 2014;22:150–3.
  11. Maneesha Sharma, R.K. Gorea, Arshdeep Gorea and Abdulwahab Abuderman. A morphometric study of the human mandible in the Indian population for sex determination; Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences 2016;6:165-169.
  12. Pecora NG, Baccetti T, McNamara JA Jr The aging craniofacial complex: a longitudinal cephalometric study from late adolescence to late adulthood. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:496-505.
  13. Vinay G, Gowri M, Anbalagan J. Sex determination of human mandible using metrical    J  Clin Diagnostic Res 2013;7(12):2671-2673.
  14. Flossie Jayakaran, Sayee Rajangam, Janakiram S,  Thomas  Sexing of the mandible. Anatomica Karnataka. 2000;1(1):11–16.
  15. Ranganath Vallabhajosyula, Yogitha Ravindranath, Roopa Ravindranath. Sexual dimorphism in mandibular morphology: a study on South Indian sample. South Asian Anthropologist 2008;8(1):9-11.
  16. Daniel Franklin, Paul O’Higgins, Charles E Oxnard, Ian Dadour. Sexual dimorphism in the subadult mandible:quantification using geometric J Forensic Sci. 2007;52(1):6-10.
  17. Tejashree Bhagwatkar, Manjiri Thakur, Devendra Palve, Apoorva Bhondey,Yogita Dhengar, SwatiChaturvedi; Sex determination by using mandibular ramus – A forensic study. Journal of Advanced Medical and Dental Sciences Research 2016;4(2):1-6
  18. Frayer DW, Wolpoff MH.Sexual dimorphism. Ann RevAnthropol 1985; 14:429–73.

Cite this article: Babita Kujur, Naina S. Wakode, Manisha R. Gaikwad, Santosh L. Wakode. MOST RELIABLE PARAMETER OF THE MANDIBLE USED FOR SEX DETERMINATION. Int J Anat Res 2017;5(4.2):4611-4615. DOI: 10.16965/ijar.2017.419