[Downloaded free from http://www.ijdr.in on Friday, December 6, 2019, IP: 157.34.100.

219]

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Stature estimation using odontometry and skull

anthropometry

Shalini Kalia, Shwetha K Shetty, Karthikeya Patil, Mahima VG

Department of Oral Medicine ABSTRACT

and Radiology, J.S.S. Dental
College and Hospital, Mysore, Objective: To investigate the possibility of estimating height from odontometry and anthropometric
Karnataka - 570 015, India
data of the skull for the positive identification of height in forensic investigations concerned
with fragmentary human remains.
Materials and Methods: The study was carried out on 100 Mysorean patients, 50 males, and
50 females. Measurements of mesiodistal widths of the six maxillary anterior teeth, circumference
of the skull, and height were made directly on each patient. Anteroposterior diameter of the
skull was obtained on the lateral cephalograph. The data collected were subjected to statistical
methods. The known heights of the combined data, data for males, and females were regressed
against the odontometric and anthropometric variables using linear regression analysis.
Results: Significant sexual dimorphism was observed for the parameters studied (P < 0.05).
Highly significant correlation was found between height and other parameters when combined
data and data for males were regressed. The equation relating height to the combined mesiodistal
width of maxillary anterior teeth was derived as height = 982.421 + 13.65 x combined
mesiodistal width of maxillary anterior teeth (P < 0.0001). Similarly equations were obtained
by regressing height to head circumference and skull diameter (P < 0.0001 for both). The above
findings may hence provide reliable method of estimation of height from skeletal remains in
Received : 01-06-06 the forensic setup.
Review completed : 30-10-06
Accepted : 09-11-06 Key words: Cephalometry, craniometry, fronto-occipital circumference, height, identification,
PubMed ID : ?????? mesiodistal tooth dimension

Stature is the height of a person in the upright posture.[1]
In the identiÞcation of unknown human remains, stature
estimation is a preliminary investigation.[2,3]
In cases where identiÞcation has to be performed based
on skeletal remains, the most common stature estimates
are derived from long bones.[2-9] These are based upon the
principle that the various long bones correlate positively
with stature.[7,9]
There are indices relating an odontometric parameter to a
cranial one, often cited in the specialty of prosthodontia.[10]
According to some other authors, there exists a relationship
between the combined mesiodistal width of maxillary
anterior teeth and the head circumference.[11]
Stature correlation to skull and jaw dimensions is frequently
reported among various populations.[4,12-17] One of the
initial studies in this context was undertaken by Indian
researchers.[14] The literature, however, is lacking in that the
Correspondence:
Dr. Karthikeya Patil,
E-mail: patilkarthik@rediffmail.com
derivation of the height from an odontometric parameter has
not been explored adequately. The studies correlating tooth
dimensions with height as ratios or regression equations are
sporadic.[10,18] This is surprising as skull with or without teeth
may be the only remains of an individual.
With this background, we undertook this study to
investigate the relationship of height of a person with
the diameter and circumference of skull as well as with
combined mesiodistal width of maxillary anterior teeth in
a Mysorean population with the statistical aid of regression
analysis of these variables. This was aimed to provide for
positive identiÞcation by height in forensic investigations
concerned with fragmentary human remains.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The representative Mysorean population sample of 50 males
and 50 females was recruited from those reporting to our
department as outpatients or persons accompanying them
and the hospital staff. In this study, the subjects were invited
to participate if they met the following criteria:
1. Age 20-40 years.
2. Mysorean ancestors at least from two previous

Indian J Dent Res, 19(2), 2008 150

[Downloaded free from http://www.ijdr.in on Friday, December 6, 2019, IP: 157.34.100.219]
Stature estimation
generations.
3. Complete set of fully erupted, periodontally healthy,
noncarious, nonworn, intact, and satisfactorily aligned
maxillary anterior teeth.
4. No history or clinical evidence of cleft palate or crown
restorations orthodontic treatment orthognathic
surgery, trauma, or surgery of the skull.
5. No history or clinical features suggestive of endocrinal
disorders, metabolic disorders, developmental disorders,
and history of prolonged illness.
6. Unrelated subjects.
After obtaining informed consent from the subject selected,
measurements of mesiodistal crown width of the six
maxillary anterior teeth (later added to derive combined
mesiodistal widths), fronto-occipital head circumference,
height, and diameter of the skull on a lateral cephalograph
were performed.
The techniques for these measurements are simple and
universally standard to perform.[6,11,12,19 -22]
Following a practice session with the instruments and
standardizing the landmarks as well as the equipments,
all measurements were performed by two of the
investigators, with one recording the measurements and
the other performing radiography. This was done to assure
consistency in surface measurements, in accordance with
the recommendations cited by Farkas.[23] Since most study
subjects were outpatients, repeat measurements at various
time intervals were impractical. However, landmarks used
were Þrst conÞrmed by other two investigators who were
also present during the measurements for each subject. All
measurements were repeated thrice and averaged reading
was used. Skull diameter for each subject was measured on
the lateral cephalographs made on 8′ by 10′ radiographic
Þlms (Rotograph 230 eur Panoramic machine) with exposure
parameters adjusted for individual patient. Only radiographs
with good diagnostic quality were included for the study.
The greatest mesiodistal crown widths of the maxillary
anterior permanent six teeth were measured between the
anatomic contact points of each tooth on either side of the
jaw, using dividers with Þxing device and pointed tines to
access the interproximal areas, with the instrument held
parallel to the occlusal plane. The distance between divider
tines was read off on a stainless steel scale and recorded to the
nearest millimeter. Although shown to produce systematic
errors, use of dividers is an accepted method.[23] We tried to
minimize this error by repeating the measurements thrice
and averaging the values obtained.
Maximal fronto-occipital circumference was measured by
placing a nonstretchable plastic tape (calibrated in millimeters)
just on the occipital prominence and the supraorbital ridges,
while viewing the subject laterally also to ensure proper
151
Kalia, et al.
placement of the tape. In cases of some hairstyles in males,
we drew the tape tightly and compressed the hair as much
as possible. In cases of females, we asked the subjects to lift
their hair in occipital area and the tape was placed against
the skin and not over the lumps of hair. This method was in
accordance with the one used by Everklioglu et al.[19]
Height was measured as vertical distance from the vertex
to the ßoor using a standard anthropometer. Measurement
was taken by making the subject stand erect on a horizontal
resisting plane barefooted. Anthropometer was placed in
straight vertical position behind the subject with head
oriented in Frankfürt plane and shoulder blocks and
buttocks touching the vertical limb of the instrument. The
movable rod of the anthropometer was brought in contact
with vertex in the midsagittal plane.[6]
The skull diameter was derived as the linear distance between
the glabella and the external occipital protuberance. This
distance was measured on the lateral skull cephalograph
by using a stainless steel scale and recorded to the nearest
millimeter. Corrected skull diameter was then calculated
by employing the magniÞcation factor (1.068 or 9.36%),
derived by using the geometric principle of similar triangles
which is applicable for posteroanterior as well as lateral
cephalometric examinations.[24-27]
A commercially available statistical software programme
(Epi Info [TM] 3.3.2) was used to analyze the data.
Comparisons were made between the measurements
recorded with respect to the gender using statistical mean,
standard deviation, range, and Student’s t-test.
Combined data, male, and female data were analyzed
separately for linear regression of height to the parameters
recorded. The linear regression equation was derived
as y = mx + c , where y -axis was the height recorded
corresponding to the odontometric or cranial measurements
on the x-axis. The correlation was indicated by the slope
of the trend line.
Height was Þrst regressed separately against the combined
mesiodistal width, the head circumference, and diameter
of the skull. Next, two of the measurements were added
per patient and regressed to the height. That is, height was
regressed against addition of combined mesiodistal width
and head circumference, addition of combined mesiodistal
width and skull diameter, and addition of skull diameter
and head circumference. Finally, all the measurements were
added for each subject and plotted against their heights to
derive a correlation.
RESULTS
The descriptive statistics for the four measurements
recorded in the sample are shown in Table 1. Most
Indian J Dent Res, 19(2), 2008
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijdr.in on Friday, December 6, 2019, IP: 157.34.100.219]

Stature estimation Kalia, et al.

Table 1: Descriptive statistics for the measurements recorded

Parameter Group Mean Minimum Maximum SD P value
Combined mesiodistal width Males 48.89 43.00 57.50 2.76 0.0005
of maxillary anterior teeth Females 47.00 41.00 54.00 2.50
Head circumference Males 550.90 510 580 15.54 0.0000
Females 506.94 460 540 17.63
Skull diameter Males 175.97 156.97 213.91 9.56 0.0000
Females 163.92 144.97 176.36 5.88
Height Males 1716.54 1510 1825 55.78 0.0000
Females 1556.72 1447 1735 52.66

Table 2: Descriptive statistics for the ratios studied

Ratio Group Mean Minimum Maximum SD P value
Head circumference to combined mesiodistal Males 11.32 10.09 12.73 0.61 0.0002
width of maxillary anterior teeth Females 10.82 8.51 12.16 0.71
Skull diameter to combined mesiodistal Males 3.32 3.16 4.6 0.23 0.014
width of maxillary anterior teeth Females 3.50 2.86 3.99 0.24
Height to combined mesiodistal Males 35.23 31.74 39.67 1.89 0.0000
width of maxillary anterior teeth Females 33.21 28.79 37.72 2.11
Head circumference to Skull diameter Males 3.15 2.64 3.86 0.17 0.054
Females 3.09 2.87 3.36 0.10
Height to Head circumference Males 3.11 2.9 3.39 0.11 0.099
Females 3.07 2.81 3.49 0.15
Height to Skull diameter Males 9.75 8.18 10.71 0.49 0.023
Females 9.52 8.87 11.1 0.51

measurements recorded exhibited statistically signiÞcant
sexual dimorphism (P < 0.001). The mean and standard
deviation of circumference of the head and combined
mesiodistal width of maxillary anterior teeth as well as ratio
of the two parameters [Table 2] were comparable to those
found in a previous study.[11]
Ratio calculated among the parameters, such as height to
combined mesiodistal widths of maxillary anterior teeth,
height to skull diameter, and so on, were subjected to similar
analysis for males and female subjects.
When combined mesiodistal width of maxillary teeth was
plotted against height, we found a statistically signiÞcant
correlation between the two, although the coefficient
was small. A higher correlation was observed when head
circumference was regressed to the height for the combined
data and data for males. In comparison a smaller correlation
was found for the skull diameter and the height.
When two measurements were added and correlated
to the height, the gradient of the trend line improved
indicating elevated correlation. Addition of odontometry
to the remaining two parameters only marginally increased
correlation with height. Although a high correlation, only
second in the rank, was seen when height was regressed
against addition of combined mesiodistal width and head
circumference.
Highly signiÞcant correlation, the highest observed in the
group was seen when height was regressed against addition
of all the three measurements. SufÞcient to say, this category
provided the most reliable stature estimates.
Indian J Dent Res, 19(2), 2008
The regression equations were derived as listed in Table 3.
Barring results from the female parameters (which had no
correlation with height), most male and combined data
parameters had a positive correlation with the stature.
Even so, the correlations of only combined data analysis
were statistically signiÞcant, with coefÞcient ranging from
0.38 to 0.56.
DISCUSSION
Various methods are used to establish the identity of
unknown human remains. The reliability of each method
varies.[2] Estimation of stature, as part of identiÞcation process
has a long history in physical anthropology. A drawback
to these techniques is limited applicability to fragmentary
remains.[9] When the body has been mutilated, it is common
to have the extremities or head amputated from the trunk. An
estimate must then be made based on the known relationship
of the remains to stature.[3] The introduction of regression
formulae developed in the modern populations has enhanced
the accuracy of stature estimation.
Osteometry seems to be the preferred technique because it
is more effective in determining sex and race to an extent.[3]
The method of using teeth and skull measurements has
several advantages as the anatomical landmarks are standard,
well deÞned, and easy to locate.
The estimation of living stature from long bones is based
upon the principle that the long bones correlate positively
with the stature. Since this is true, parts of each bone should
also be related to stature even though they may not correlate
as highly.[7]
152
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijdr.in on Friday, December 6, 2019, IP: 157.34.100.219]

Stature estimation Kalia, et al.

Table 3: Regression equation of stature for each parameter

Parameter studied x Group mx + c SE P value Correlation
coefficient
Combined mesiodistal width of Combined 13.645x + 982.421 3.23 0.000 0.15
maxillary anterior teeth Males 8.132x + 1318.959 2.67 0.004 0.16
Females –0.328x + 1572.156 3.04 0.915 0.00
Head circumference Combined 2.565x + 280.134 0.24 0.00 0.53
Males 1.339x + 978.685 0.48 0.008 0.14
Females 0.118x + 1496.831 0.43 0.785 0.00
Skull diameter Combined 5.966x + 622.807 0.78 0.000 0.38
Males 2.214x + 1342.846 0.78 0.009 0.13
Females 0.479x + 1478.164 1.29 0.712 0.00
Head circumference + skull diameter Combined 1.982x + 252.663 0.18 0.000 0.54
Males 0.992x + 996.38 0.32 0.003 0.17
Females 0.175x + 1439.179 0.35 0.615 0.01
Combined mesiodistal width of maxillary Combined 2.501x + 193.836 0.23 0.000 0.55
anterior teeth + head circumference Males 1.361x + 900.320 0.44 0.003 0.17
Females 0.113x + 1494.201 0.43 0.796 0.00
Combined mesiodistal width of maxillary Combined 5.428x + 453.844 0.67 0.000 0.40
anterior teeth + Skull diameter Males 2.201x + 1262.007 0.65 0.003 0.17
Females 0.434x + 1465.235 1.31 0.743 0.00
Combined mesiodistal width of maxillary Combined 1.971x + 164.338 0.18 0.000 0.56
anterior teeth + Head circumference + Males 1.049x + 902.754 0.31 0.001 0.20
Skull diameter Females 0.113x + 1475.375 0.36 0.753 0.00

The above principle was found to hold good in the present
study. We found highest correlation when individual
measurements of combined data were plotted against height.
Also, adding the odontometric and craniometric parameters
elevated the correlation with the stature estimation. This
improvement in correlation was statistically signiÞcant only
when combined data were analyzed. The above Þndings
and the inconclusive results obtained from male and female
data may be attributed to an extent to the small sample and
nonhomogenous sampling.
The results of regression of odontometric measurements to
stature could have been compared to a previous study which
was done in a Norweign population. Methods and results are
unknown as this article was unavailable for analysis even
after a thorough search among various resources.[18] In our
study, odontometry alone was found to be unreliable in
stature estimation.
As for the regression of the head and skull measurements, a
similar study in 1998 was conducted directly on cadavers.[4]
This is in contrast with our study as head circumference
included the soft tissue covering of the skull of living subjects
and skull diameter was derived from the radiographs. These
investigators found largest correlation of skull measurements
and stature with combined data, a consistently lesser
correlation (but statistically signiÞcant) for all parameters
(except skull diameter) tested for females and sum of
skull diameter and circumference most reliable in stature
estimation, the three Þndings that were consistent with our
study. The investigators reported coefÞcient correlation
ranging from 0.003 to 0.53. Although standard errors of
estimate are comparatively lesser, our study had statistically
insigniÞcant correlation for both males and females when
tested separately for all parameters.
153
Another study on cadavers included a wide age range and
reported a statistically insigniÞcant correlation of maximum
anteroposterior length and circumference of skull to stature
for both males and females. Combined data were not used
by these investigators.[14] A much larger sample consisting
of only males was tested employing similar landmarks and
better results were reported with coefÞcient correlation
ranging from 0.38 to 0.60, close to the one we found in the
present study.[15]
The regression of skull diameter to the height was found
to have similar results as obtained in another study, using
lateral skull cephalograph, with comparable standard errors
of estimation. Females in this study showed marginally
greater mean difference between the average actual and
average estimated heights as compared to the males.[12,13]
There may be more studies exploring the skull and stature
relationship. Disparity in the methods and landmarks
for skull measurements demands their exclusion for
comparison.[16,17]
Further research is warranted with larger samples in the
direction of definite improvement in the accuracy of
stature estimation from odontometry. We recommend
studies on cadavers and skulls without soft tissue covering
as well as assessment of the effect of aging on the regression
coefÞcients in stature estimation.
CONCLUSION
Our study was carried out to investigate the possibility of
estimating the height of a person from teeth and skull by
application of regression analysis. Tooth dimensions alone
may not be useful in stature estimation, but deÞnitely enhance
Indian J Dent Res, 19(2), 2008
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijdr.in on Friday, December 6, 2019, IP: 157.34.100.219]
Stature estimation
the reliability when combined with skull measurements.
Despite the pessimism prevailing use of male and female data
individually, for reasons which have been discussed above,
we propose that skull with teeth may provide accurate clues
to stature from an individual’s fragmentary remains.
This is not an exhaustive survey, but has provided a
statistically valid technique. It is preferable that the results
may be viewed more as indicative of the feasibility of the
technique as in providing formulae applicable in the forensic
science work.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to Dr. B. Nandlal, Principal, J.S.S. Dental
College and Hospital, Mysore, Karnataka, India for supporting
the study and Dr. Prabhakar, J.S.S. Medical College and Hospital,
Mysore, Karnataka, India for helping with the statistics.
REFERENCES
1. Stedman TL. Stedman’s medical dictionary. Baltimore: Lippincott
Williams and Wilkins; 2000. p. 211.
2. Sopher IM. The dentist, the forensic pathologist and the identification
of skeletal remains. J Am Dent Assoc 1972;85:1324-9.
3. Jason DR, Taylor K. Estimation of stature from the length of the cervical,
thoracic and lumbar segments of the spine in American whites and
blacks. J Forensic Sci JFSCA 1995;40:59-62.
4. Chiba M, Terazawa K. Estimation of stature from somatometry of skull.
Forensic Sci Int 1998;97:87-92.
5. Nath S. An introduction to forensic anthropology. Delhi: Gian Publishing
House; 1989.
6. Jasuja OP, Singh G. Estimation of stature from hand and phalange
length. JIAFM 2004;26:100-6.
7. Simmons T, Jantz RL, Bass WM. Stature estimation from fragmentary
femora: A revision of the Steele method, J Forensic Sci JFSCA
1990;35:628-36.
8. Jantz RL. Modification of the Trotter and Gleser female stature
estimation formulae. J Forensic Sci JFSCA 1992;37:1230-5.
9. Holland TD. Estimation of adult stature from fragmentary tibias.
J Forensic Sci JFSCA 1992;37:1223-9.
10. Veeraiyan DN, Ramalingam K, Bhat V. Textbook of prosthodontics.
New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers Ltd; 2003. p. 169.
Indian J Dent Res, 19(2), 2008
Kalia, et al.
11. Hamid R, Master SB, Udani TM. Facial measurements and their
relationship to the mesio-distal dimensions of the maxillary anterior
teeth. J Indian Dent Assoc 1979;51:303-6.
12. Hatwar KK. Determination of sex and estimation of stature in adults by
linear measurements. A lateral cephalometric study. MDS dissertation,
Nagpur University; 1997.
13. Patil KR, Mody RN. Determination of sex by discriminant function
analysis and stature by regression analysis: A lateral cephalometric
study. Forensic Sci Int 2005;147:175-80.
14. Sarangi AK, Dadhi B, Mishra KK. Estimation of stature from adult skull
bone. J Indian Acad Forensic Med 1981;182:24-6.
15. Introna F Jr, Di Vella G, Petrachi S. Determination of height in life
using multiple regression of skull parameters. Boll Soc Ital Biol Sper
1993;69:153-60.
16. Chandanani MG, Mody RN. Relationship of mandibular angle with age
and estimation of individual’s height. A cephalometric study. MDS
dissertation, Nagpur University; 1991.
17. Sahuji SK, Mody RN. Relationship of different linear measurements
between various anthropological points of skull and stature in adults.
A cephalometric study. MDS dissertation, Nagpur University; 1994.
18. Filipsson R, Goldson L. Correlation between tooth width, width of the
head, length of the head and stature, Acta Odontol Scand 1963;21:
359-65.
19. Everklioglu C, Doganay S, Er H, Gunduz A, Tercan M, Balat A, et al.
Craniofacial anthropometry in a Turkish population. Cleft Palate
Craniofac J 2002;39:208-18.
20. Farkas LG, Posnick JC, Hreczko TM. Anthropometric growth study of
the head. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1992;29:303-8.
21. Bishara SE, Garcia AF, Jakobsen JR, Fahl JA. Mesiodistal crown dimensions
in Mexico and the United States. Angle Orthod 1986;56:315-23.
22. Singh IP, Bhasin MK. A manual of biological anthropology. Delhi:
Kamala-Raj Enterprises; 1986.
23. Farkas LG. Accuracy of anthropometric measurements; Past,present,and
future. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1996;33:10-8.
24. Yadav S,Nagabhushan D, Rao BB, Mamatha GP.Mandibular canine index
in establishing sex identity. Indian J Dent Res 2002;13:143-6.
25. Hsiao TH, Chang HP, Liu KM. A method of magnification correction
for posteroanterior radiographic cephalometry. Angle Orthod
1997;67:137-42.
26. Bushong SC. Radiologic Science for Technologists. Physics, Biology
and Protection, Mosby, St. Louis; 1993.
27. Cohen JM. Comparing digital and conventional cephalometric
radiographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:157-60.
How to cite this article: Kalia S, Shetty SK, Patil K, Mahima VG. Stature
estimation using odontometry and skull anthropometry. Indian J Dent Res
2008;19:150-4
Source of Support: Nil, Conflict of Interest: None declared.
154