ArticlePloS one2026
Geometric morphometric analysis of maxillary molar sexual dimorphism: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe sexual dimorphism of permanent maxillary molars has been extensively documented through metric and subjective shape analysis. The aim of this study was to evaluate sexual dimorphism in the shape of permanent maxillary first (UM1) and second molars (UM2) using geometric morphometric analysis.
methodsThis cross-sectional study analysed digitized dental casts from 60 males and 60 females. The casts were scanned using a laser surface scanner, and 28 three-dimensional landmarks, defined based on anatomical and geometric landmarks, were marked using SlicerMorph software. The shape data was then analysed using Procrustes superimposition, principal components analysis, regression, and discriminant function analysis to test the shape changes, allometry, and differences between the sexes.
resultsCentroid size did not differ significantly between sexes for UM1 and UM2 (p > 0.05). Shape differences were not significant in UM1 (p = 0.15) but were significant in UM2 (p = 0.01). Allometry was observed in both molars, with a greater contribution in UM2 (6.96%) compared to UM1 (2.39%) (p < 0.001). Discriminant function analysis identified patterns of shape variation between groups; however, these findings should be interpreted cautiously as no cross-validation was performed.
conclusionGeometric morphometric analysis identified significant shape differences in the maxillary second molar. These findings demonstrate the utility of 3D geometric morphometric analysis for assessing tooth shape variation and support its application to evaluating sexual dimorphism of maxillary molars. Further studies involving larger and more diverse populations are warranted to validate these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.