This study sought to demonstrate a correlation between arch width, ethnic background, individual height, weight, and whether orthodontic treatment had been rendered. Conclusions revealed that arch widths were significantly larger (p= 0.002 for the mandible and p= 0.008 for the maxilla) in non-Whites than in Whites. In addition, arch widths of the mandible were significantly larger in individuals who had had orthodontic treatment compared to those who had not (p=0.005). This did not carry through to those arch widths in the maxilla of orthodontic versus nonorthodontic care (p=0.258)

Johnson, L Thomas

Radmer, Thomas W

English

epublications@Marquette

Marquette Universitye-Publications@MarquetteSchool of Dentistry Faculty Research andPublications Dentistry, School of5-1-2009The Correlation of Dental Arch Width andEthnicityThomas W. RadmerMarquette University, thomas.radmer@marquette.eduL Thomas JohnsonMarquette University, thomas.johnson@marquette.eduPublished Version. Journal of Forensic Identification, Volume 59, No. 3, (200): 268-274. PublisherLink. © 2009 International Association for Identification. Used with permission.Journal of Forensic Identification268 / 59 (3), 2009Technical NoteThe Correlation of Dental Arch Width and EthnicityThomas W. Radmer 1L. Thomas Johnson 2Abstract: This study sought to demonstrate a correlation between arch width, ethnic background, individual height, weight, and whether orthodontic treatment had been rendered. Conclusions revealed that arch widths were signif icantly larger (p= 0.002 for the mandible and p= 0.008 for the maxilla) in non-Whites than in Whites. In addition, arch widths of the mandible were signif icantly larger in individuals who had had orthodontic treatment compared to those who had not (p=0.005). This did not carry through to those arch widths in the maxilla of orthodontic versus nonorthodontic care (p=0.258). IntroductionOften, patterned injuries in criminal cases can be either exculpatory or incriminating [1, 2]. Patterned injuries left by the dentition of an assailant in the victims of violent crimes have been shown to demonstrate such evidence [3]. The testimonies of forensic odontologists have been challenged by defense attorneys as only being opinions, with no research to support them. These challenges stemmed from several Supreme Court rulings, most notably the Daubert decision. However, McFarland completed a basic study using subjective observations without statisti-cal analysis [4]. Rawson completed a study of all the possible positions each anterior tooth could occupy [5]. An additional study characterized arch width analysis [2]. Recent studies have quantified the individual characteristics of the six anterior teeth in the human dentition [6, 7]. In a recent study, exemplars were gathered from males between the ages of 18 and 44 years [6]. 1  Department of Surgical Services, Marquette University School of Dentistry, Milwaukee, WI.2 Department of General Dental Services, Marquette University School of Dentistry, Milwaukee, WI.Received July 28, 2008; accepted November 11, 2008Journal of Forensic Identification59 (3), 2009 \ 269In that analysis, arch width was defined as the distance from the center point of one cuspid imprint to the center point of the opposite cuspid. The line connecting these points was measured using both an automated process of the placement of a marker and the measuring tool found in Adobe Photoshop CS2. A database on the f requency dist r ibution of commonly observed characteristics in the human dentition has begun to emerge. It may be possible over several years to eventually expand the individual dental characteristics study, as previously reported [6], and to replicate a database similar in size to that of mtDNA. This study is an effort to link a specific arch width to an ethnic group. This project provides the forensic odontologist and the criminal justice system with a valuable tool to either include or exclude a suspect on the basis of a pattern of an injury associated with a crime. It also provides for developing a specific profile to an as yet unidentified suspect. This would allow investigators to first focus valuable resources by profil-ing the most likely of a victim’s associates when DNA is not recovered from the scene. Materials and MethodsFive hundred exemplars were gathered from males between the ages of 18 and 44 from patients seeking care at Marquette University’s School of Dentistry, two military reserve units, and participants of the Wisconsin Dental Association’s May 2006 conference. Seventy-nine exemplars were discarded because they were distorted. Another seven were discarded because no ethnic origin was indicated on the survey form. Of the remaining samples, 360 were listed as White or Caucasian, 18 were Black or African American, 20 were Hispanic, 8 were Asian, and 8 were other non-White. For the purposes of statistical analysis, the non-Whites were grouped and compared to Whites because there were not enough examples to consider each ethnic group separately. The ethnic background of the individuals included in the research mimicked the U.S. census bureau statistics for the State of Wisconsin (Table 1). Each participant f illed out an informed consent and a brief anonymous medical history, which included questions regarding age, gender, height, weight, ethnic origin, history of facial trauma, and whether orthodon-tic treatment had been rendered. Exemplars were identif ied by alphanumeric designation and were not associated with a specific individual’s identification. Journal of Forensic Identification270 / 59 (3), 2009Ethnicity Study Total Percentage Wisconsin Census DataWhite 360 86.9 88.9Black 18 4.3 5.7Hispanic 20 4.8 3.6Asian 8 1.9 1.7Other non-White 8 1.9 2.5Table 1Current study compared with census data. Arch widths were measured from the midpoint of the left and right cuspid imprint equidistant from the mesial and distal regis-tration of the outline of the tooth margins. A one-pixel marker from a palette of ten, dubbed Tom’s Toolbox1, was placed at this center point. Measurements were carried out using the measure tool in Adobe Photoshop CS2 and an automated program. This automated program utilizes the palette of ten pixels, each having a different green color intensity value from 1 to 250. They were inserted at an enlargement of 300 percent. A comparison of the manual measurements recorded in Adobe Photoshop with those calculated by the automated program, Tom’s Toolbox, was used to validate the accuracy and reliability of the measurements in each method as cited in a previous publication by the authors [6]. The values of the arch width were incorporated into a spread sheet, with the operator tasked to answer the questions regarding height, weight, ethnicity, and orthodontic treatment by utiliz-ing a drop-down menu. All original histories were archived on the Marquette University server, with the data recorded on a spreadsheet for statistical analysis. Pearson Product Moment Correlations were calculated using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS Institute, Carey, NC) for arch width, weight, and height as well as for the ethnic background of each subject and orthodontic history (Tables 2 and 3). Because the sample size for ethnic groups other than White was small, all non-White backgrounds were grouped for statistical analy-sis. There were enough subjects to separate those who had from those who had not had orthodontic treatment. Likewise, those with a history of facial fracture did not constitute a large enough group to be studied independently. 1  An automated software program under development at Marquette University that has been adapted for bitemark analysis [6].Journal of Forensic Identification59 (3), 2009 \ 271Arch Widths Whites Non-Whites p-value OrthodonticTreatmentNo OrthodonticTreatmentp-valueMandible 26.4 ± 0.10(64)27.2 ± 0.22(351) 0.00226.8 ± 0.13(157)26.3 ± 0.12(256) 0.005Maxillary 33.1 ± 0.10(63)33.9 ± 0.27(346) 0.00833.3 ± 0.14(156)33.1 ± 0.13(251) 0.258(n): Sample size within each category ±  represents 1 standard deviationOn average, the mandibular and maxillary arch width is significantly larger in non-Whites compared to whites. Similarly, the mandibular arch width is significantly larger in individuals with orthodonic treatment compared to those without.The significance correlation is between the maxillary arch width and weight (r=0.101 p-value=0.040). The correlation seems to be driven by individuals without orthodontic treatment. Within those people, the correlation between weight and maxillary arch width is a little stronger (r=0.141 p-value= 0.024). Table 2Arch widths.Overall N Height (inches) Weight (lbs)Mandible 415 -0.034(0.491)0.025(0.607)Maxillary 409 0.026(0.595)0.101(0.040)WhitesMandible 351 -0.011(0.833)0.046(0.388)Maxillary 346 0.054(0.317)0.097(0.070)Non-WhitesMandible 64 0.041(0.749)0.070(0.584)Maxillary 63 0.073(0.567)0.112(0.350)Orthodontic TreatmentMandible 157 -0.053(0.513)0.053(0.511)Maxillary 159 -0.036(0.652)0.044(0.583)No Orthodontic TreatmentMandible 256 -0.050(0.423)0.038(0.543)Maxillary 251 0.047(0.456)0.141(0.025)( ):p-value testing whether r = 025.8% (17/66) of non-Whites and 40.5% (143/353) of Whites had had orthodontic treatment. The proportion of individuals with orthodontic treatment is significantly higher in Whites (p-value=0.024).Table 3Pearson correlations between arch width, weight, and height.Journal of Forensic Identification272 / 59 (3), 2009Results and DiscussionThe sample size for comparison of arch width with height and weight showed that there was little to no correlation (Table 2). Using a Pearson Product Moment Correlation with regard to these factors, the only significant association was between the maxillary arch width and weight (r=0.101; p value = 0.040). This correlation seems to be driven by individuals without orthodon-tic treatment. Within this group, the correlation between weight and maxillary arch width was somewhat stronger (r=0.141; p-value=0.025). One hundred forty-three Whites out of three hundred fifty-three in the sample had had orthodontic treatment. Seventeen out of sixty-six non-Whites had had orthodontic treat-ment. The proportion of individuals with orthodontic treatment was significantly higher in Whites (p-value= 0.024).   Table 3 shows the comparison of the width in the maxilla between those individuals who had not had orthodontic care to those who had had orthodontic care. Here, the mean difference in arch widths of 33.3 mm ± 0.14 mm compared to the means of nonorthodontic arch widths in the maxilla of 33.1 mm ± 0.13 mm resulted in a p-value of 0.258. This could be interpreted as the difference in crowding of the mandible being a skeletal phenom-enon compared to the maxilla as being dental in origin. When taken together with the data for height and weight as it correlates to arch width, the p values for height comparisons and maxil-lary arch widths in the orthodontic versus the nonorthodontic patient were p=0.652 versus p=0.456, respectively. This could be further indication that skeletal differences did not have a significant effect on maxillary arch widths alone. The strength of tooth characteristics cannot be discarded when evaluating maxillary arch widths with respect to orthodontic treatment in this population.  On average, the mandibular and maxillary arch width is significantly larger in non-Whites compared to Whites (Table 2). Similarly, the mandibular arch width is significantly larger in individuals with orthodontic treatment compared to those without such treatment. Given a patterned injury, it seems relevant to state that an extremely wide arch in the maxilla is more likely to belong to a member of the group studied who is male and non-White. This study contained males who were between the ages of 18 and 44 years residing in the State of Wisconsin. Larger data sets would be necessary to subdivide Journal of Forensic Identification59 (3), 2009 \ 273non-Whites into individual ethnic groups. In addition, the data does not include females, which could alter the results for these subgroups. In addition to lif ting the restrictions of age and gender, the data set needs to be expanded to increase the minor-ity representation that is more in line with U.S. census. This heterogeneous population mandates a much larger sample size.ConclusionBecause the sample size was limited to four hundred individ-uals, a distinction between ethnic groups as far as arch width could not be determined along individual racial lines. The study did show a significant difference when grouping all non-Whites with those arch widths of Whites. Additional exemplars need to be gathered from a cross-section of the population to individual-ize results by race. Extrapolating to the United States population should proceed based on the pilot study presented. For further information, please contact:Thomas W. Radmer DDS, MSMarquette University School of Dentistry1801 W. Wisconsin AvenueMilwauke, WI 53201Thomas.Radmer@Marquette.eduReferences1. Adams, B. J. The Diversity of Adult Dental Pat terns in the United States and the Implications for Personal Identification. J. For. Sci. 2003, 48 (3), 497-5032. Barsley, R. E.;  Lancaster, D. M. Measurement of Arch Widths in a Human Population; Relation of Anticipated Bite Marks. J. For. Sci. 1987, 32 (4), 975-982.3. Rothwell, B. R. Bite Marks in Forensic Dentistry: A Review of Legal, Scientif ic Issues. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 1995, 126 (2), 223-232.4. McFarland, T. W.; MacDonald, D. G.; Sutherland, D. A. Statistical Problems in Dental Identif ication. J. For. Sci. Soc. 1974, 14 (3), 247-252.5. Rawson, R. D.; Ommen, R. K.; Kinnard, G.; Johnson, J.; Yfantis, A. Statistical Evidence for the Individuality of the Human Dentition. J. For. Sci. 1984, 29 (1), 245-253.Journal of Forensic Identification274 / 59 (3), 20096. Johnson, L. T.; Blinka, D. D.; VanScotter-Asbach, P.; Radmer, T. W. Quantification of the Individual Characteristics of the Human Dentition: Methodology. J. For. Ident. 2008, 58 (4), 409-418.7. Blackwell, S. A.; Taylor, R. V.; Gordon, I.; Ogleby, C. L.; Tanijiri, T. Yoshino, M.; Donald, M. R.; Clement, J. G. 3-D Imaging and Quantitative Comparison of Human Dentitions and Simulated Bite Marks. Int. J. Legal Med. 2007, 121 (1), 9-17.          

The Correlation of Dental Arch Width and Ethnicity

https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&amp;context=dentistry_fac

The Correlation of Dental Arch Width and Ethnicity

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

epublications@Marquette