SynthesisInternational journal of legal medicine2026
Dental morphometric and non-morphometric in sex assessment: A systematic review and meta analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of legal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sex determination from skeletal remains is a critical step in forensic identification, particularly when remains are fragmented. Forensic odontology contributes significantly through dental morphometric and non-morphometric assessments, both of which exhibit sexual dimorphism. However, reported accuracy varies, and findings remain inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the reliability of dental parameters for sex estimation. A comprehensive search of seven databases (PubMed, Scopus, EBSCO, Web of Science, Taylor & Francis, Wiley Library, and MDPI) was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD420251091284). Eligible studies were cross-sectional, published in English within the past 10 years, and assessed sex using dental morphometric or non-morphometric methods. Forty-six studies involving 8,053 individuals (4,059 males; 3,994 females) met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 44 assessed morphometric parameters and 4 assessed non-morphometric parameters. Mandibular and maxillary measurements were the most frequently analyzed and consistently demonstrated significant dimorphism (p < 0.05), whereas maxillary sinuses and palatal index showed no significance. Additional morphometric predictors included crista galli, mental foramen, and mastoid triangle. In contrast, pooled non-morphometric analyses involving 3,262 samples showed no significant association with sex estimation (p = 0.70). Overall, morphometric measurements provide more accurate and reliable tools for forensic sex determination than non-morphometric approaches. Further research is needed to validate non-morphometric parameters and address population heterogeneity in forensic applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41872580What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.