## 4 Discussion  
Gender dimorphism of permanent teeth has been well established in the literature. Several studies including recent systematic reviews on tooth crown mesiodistal measurements for estimating sexual dimorphism across different population groups had documented that canine dimensions provide the most effective indicator of gender dimorphism, whilst few other studies have reported dimorphism in the premolars and molars, and in the mean maxillary arch and palatal depths [8; 13; 14; 15]. Canines are considered to be among the teeth least affected by developmental abnormalities in relation to the tooth size and morphology, and they are the most stable teeth in the arch. Moreover, the permanent maxillary canine was found to be the most reliable in the assessment of gender, and this view seems to be reflected in several previous studies [13; 16; 17; 18]. Other authors, however, had reported mandibular canines to exhibit the most effective gender dimorphism [2; 19]. Most studies conducted on gender dimorphism in the Middle East region have not included Saudi Arabia, despite having the largest population compared to other ethnic groups, and the literature contains very few studies on the measurement of tooth dimensions in the Saudi population [16; 20; 21; 22]. The present study attempted to estimate gender dimorphism using digitized dental casts by measuring the mesiodistal width and ICD of maxillary permanent \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Function**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Unstandardized Coefficient**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Constant**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Wilks’s Lambda**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Centroids**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Classification Accuracy**} \\ \cline{5-10}  & & & & & & & & **Male** & **Female** & **Overall** \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{Multivariate discriminant function} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{1} & Right canine (13) MD & 7.356 & & & & & & & & \\  & Left canine (23) MD & \(-\)7.037 & \(-\)46.145 & 0.571 & 0.860 & \(-\)0.860 & 47 (79.7) & 48 (81.4) & 95 (80.5) \\ \cline{2-10}  & ICD & 1.243 & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{Univariate discriminant function} \\ \hline
2 & Right canine (13) MD & 2.687 & \(-\)20.210 & 0.890 & 0.348 & \(-\)0.358 & 41 (69.5) & 49 (83.1) & 90 (76.3) \\ \hline
3 & Left canine (23) MD & 2.718 & \(-\)20.227 & 0.921 & 0.291 & \(-\)0.291 & 35 (59.3) & 44 (74.6) & 79 (66.9) \\ \hline
4 & ICD & 1.457 & \(-\)50.630 & 0.620 & 0.777 & \(-\)0.777 & 45 (76.3) & 47 (79.7) & 92 (78) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} MD: mesiodistal width; ICD: intercanine distance.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Discriminant function analysis for gender estimation. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Function** & **Equation (Discriminant Function)** \\ \hline
1 & y = \(-\)46.145 + (7.356)(Tooth 13) + (\(-\)7.037)(Tooth 23) + (1.243)(ICD) \\ \hline
2 & y = \(-\)20.210 + (2.687)(Tooth 13) \\ \hline
3 & y = \(-\)20.227 + (2.718)(Tooth 23) \\ \hline
4 & y = \(-\)50.630 + (1.457)(ICD) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} y is the discriminant score; cutting point = 0; If y-value \(\geq\) cutting point, the individual is classified as male.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Discriminant function equations of the study sample. canines and verify the accuracy for gender estimation in a sample of the native Saudi population from the Eastern region of Saudi Arabia. Measurements of linear dimensions of teeth have been reported to be simple, less time-consuming, reliable, noninvasive, and easy to perform when compared to other forensic techniques. Several authors had concluded the MD dimension to be a better predictor of gender than the buccolingual diameter [23; 24]. Odontometric studies evaluating gender dimorphism in teeth dimensions had performed measurements conventionally using an electronic digital caliper, either intraorally or from the dental casts using an indirect method, radiographs, or using Raman spectra of teeth [8; 25].