Morphometric Analysis of the Relationship Between Bigonial Width and Cranium

Abstract

In the present study, the purpose was to determine the relation between bigonial width and craniometric parameters. This study, 7 craniometric parameters were examined based on computed tomography images of 110 adult individuals 58 of whom were males and 52 females. There parameters were Bigonial Width (BGW) in mandibula, and Maximum Cranium Width (MCW), Upper Face Width (UFW), Bizygomatic Width (BZW), Vertex-Prosthion Height (VPH), Vertex-Nasion Height (VNH), Upper Face Height (UFH) in cranium. The difference between two groups was examined with t-test in independent groups. The relation between numerical variables was examined with the Pearson Correlation Coefficient. The analyses were made with IBM SPSS v.21. Significance level was taken as p<0.05. When the morphometric relation between the mandibula and cranium was examined, it was found that although a relation was detected between BGW and all craniometric parameters, there was a relation between BGW and MCW, UFW, BZW in men, and UFW and BZW parameters in females when gender was taken into account (p<0.05). No significant correlations were detected between BGW and VPH, VNH, UFH measurement values in both genders. This study revealed that there is a significant relation between BGW and UFW and BZW parameters in both genders. It is considered that the relation between the mandibula and cranium can be used in the clinic when it should be considered, and the results will contribute to scientific studies.

Keywords

• Bigonial width
• mandibula
• cranium
• compatibility
• computed tomography

References

1. 1. Acar M, Alkan SB, Tolu I, Arslan FZ, Caglan F, Vermez H, et al. Morphometric analysis of mandibula with MDCT method in Turkish population. Asian J Biomed Pharm Sci. 2017;7:13–5.
2. 2. Hu KS, Koh KS, Han SH, Shin KJ, Kim HJ. Sex determination using nonmetric characteristics of the mandible in Koreans. J Forensic Sci. 2006;51:1376–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00270.x.
3. 3. Winkler S, Dalkowski K, Mair J, Klebe S, Waschke J, Böckers TM et al. Sobotta lehrbuch anatomie. Germany: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2015.
4. 4. Sella-Tunis T, Pokhojaev A, Sarig R, O’Higgins P, May H. Human mandibular shape is associated with masticatory muscle force. Sci Rep. 2018;8:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24293-3.
5. 5. Mangla R, Dua V, Khanna M, Singh N, Padmanabhan P. Evaluation of mandibular morphology in different facial types. Contemp Clin Dent. 2011;2:200. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-237x.86458.
6. 6. Sharma M, Gorea RK, Gorea A, Abuderman A. A morphometric study of the human mandible in the Indian population for sex determination. Egypt J Forensic Sci. 2016;6:165–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejfs.2015.01.002.
7. 7. Kallalli B, Rawson K, Ramaswamy V, Zakarneh W, Singh A, Zingade J. Sex determination of human mandible using metrical parameters by computed tomography: A prospective radiographic short study. J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol. 2016;28:7. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-1363.189990.
8. 8. Hossain MG, Saw A, Alam R, Ohtsuki F, Kamarul T. Multiple regression analysis of anthropometric measurements influencing the cephalic index of male Japanese university students. Singapore Med J. 2013;54:516–20. https://doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2013175.

9. 9. Kumar M, Lokanadham S. Sex determination & morphometric parameters of human mandible. Int J Res Med Sci. 2013;1:93. https://doi.org/10.5455/2320-6012.ijrms20130511.
10. 10. Vinay G, Mangala Gowri SR, Anbalagan J. Sex determination of human mandible using metrical parameters. J Clin Diagnostic Res. 2013;7:2671–3. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2013/7621.3728.
11. 11. Kim YH, Kang SJ, Sun H. Cephalometric angular measurements of the mandible using three-dimensional computed tomography scans in koreans. Arch Plast Surg. 2016;43:32–7. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2016.43.1.32.
12. 12. Amin WM. Osteometric assessment of various mandibular morphological traits for sexual dimorphism in jordanians by discriminant function analysis. Int J Morphol. 2018;36:642–50. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022018000200642.
13. 13. Tunis TS, Sarig R, Cohen H, Medlej B, Peled N, May H. Sex estimation using computed tomography of the mandible. Int J Legal Med. 2017;131:1691–700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-017-1554-1.
14. 14. Al-habahbah A. Age and gender differences in gonial angle, ramus height and bigonial width in dentate subjects. Pakistan Oral Dent J. 2012;32:81–7.
15. 15. Naikmasur VG, Shrivastava R, Mutalik S. Determination of sex in South Indians and immigrant Tibetans from cephalometric analysis and discriminant functions. Forensic Sci Int. 2010;197:122.e1-122.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.12.052.
16. 16. Gillet C, Costa-Mendes L, Rérolle C, Telmon N, Maret D, Savall F. Sex estimation in the cranium and mandible: a multislice computed tomography (MSCT) study using anthropometric and geometric morphometry methods. Int J Legal Med. 2020:823–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-019-02203-0.
17. 17. Preissler S, Verhoff MA, Ramsthaler F, Holz F, Gehl A, Koelzer SC. Morphometric investigations to assess the compatibility of mandible and skull. Forensic Sci Int. 2018;286:193–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.03.013.
18. 18. Mahakkanukrauh P, Sinthubua A, Prasitwattanaseree S, Ruengdit S, Singsuwan P, Praneatpolgrang S, et al. Craniometric study for sex determination in a Thai population. Anat Cell Biol. 2015;48:275–83. https://doi.org/10.5115/acb.2015.48.4.275.
19. 19. Sertel Meyvaci S, Kosif R, Bamaç B, Hizal M, Ankarali H. Evaluation of apertura piriformis and related cranial anatomical structures through computed tomography: Golden ratio. Folia Morphol. 2019;78:839–46. https://doi.org/10.5603/FM.a2019.0021.
20. 20. Apaydın B, Icoz D, Yasar F, Akgunlu F. Evaluation of mandibular anatomical formation for gender determination in Turkish population. Balk J Dent Med. 2018;22:133–7. https://doi.org/10.2478/bjdm-2018-0023.
21. 21. Hofer S, Payne C. Functional and aesthetic outcome enhancement of head and neck reconstruction through secondary procedures. Semin Plast Surg. 2010;24:309–18. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1263072.
22. 22. Pereira JGD, Lima KF, Da Silva RHA. Mandibular measurements for sex and age estimation in brazilian sampling. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2020;54:294–301. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc54/3/7.
23. 23. Iscan MY, Steyn M. Craniometric determination of population affinity in South Africans. J Clin Forensic Med. 1999;6:258–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1353-1131(99)90011-1.
24. 24. Naderi S, Çakmakçi H, Acar F, Arman C, Mertol T, Arda MN. Anatomical and computed tomographic analysis of C1 vertebra. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2003;105:245–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0303-8467(03)00037-4.