Anatomical and Morphometric Evaluation of the Cranial Index and Its Relevance to Clinical Syndromes

Year 2023, Volume: 24 Issue: 1, 46 - 51, 30.03.2023

Eren Öğüt Özge Güzelad , Fatoş Belgin Yıldırım , Esra Sayılar

https://doi.org/10.4274/meandros.galenos.2022.07088

Abstract

Objective: The most widely used method to define the craniofacial complex is the cranial index (CI). This index is calculated by determining the ratio between the maximum cranial width (CW) and the cranial length (CL), and is one of the clinically accepted anthropometric parameters. This study investigates the CI of Turkish dry skulls and its effects on sex, population affinity, and clinical syndromes.
Materials and Methods: One hundred adult Turkish dry skulls (57 male, 43 female) were investigated. The CI was calculated by the ratio of CL to CW and multiplied by 100 according to Martin’s methods. SPSS 25 was used for statistical analysis.
Results: CI values were 88.75±1.40 mm in males and 84.90±1.13 mm in females, and differences between them were significant (p=0.045). Ultradolicocephalic and hyperdolichocephalic types were not detected. Brachiocephalic types (28%) were more frequent in females than in males, whereas ultra-brachycephalic types (33%) were more frequent in males (p<0.05). The most frequent type in Turkish dry skulls was brachycephalic (26%) and ultrabrachycephalic (26%), followed by the hyperbrachycephalic (22%), mesocephalic (21%), and dolichocephalic types (5%).
Conclusion: It can be said that the brachiocephalic type is a more frequent type in Turkish adult dry skulls. The differences in CI and type between the sexes may be indicative of sexual dimorphism. Skull types can be useful in demonstrating craniofacial abnormalities or clinical syndromes.

Keywords

Cranial index, craniometry, skull, craniofacial syndrome

References

• 1. Anitha M, Raju G, Vijayamahantesh S. Cephalic Index of North Indian Population. Anatomica Karnataka - an International Journal 2011; 5: 40-3.
• 2. Kumar A, Nagar M. Morphometric Estimation of Cephalic Index in North Indian Population: Craniometrics Study. IJSR 2015; 438.
• 3. Ay R, Bhosale SM, Naik SKC, Janvekar MAA. Determination of Craniofacial Relation in Human Dry Skulls: An Anthropometric Study. International Journal of Health and Clinical Research. 2021; 4: 209-13.
• 4. Glass RB, Fernbach SK, Norton KI, Choi PS, Naidich TP. The infant skull: a vault of information. Radiographics 2004; 24: 507-22.
• 5. Paulinus SO, Eru EMBA, Ukpong EV, Archibong BE, Udoh BE, Egom AE, et al. Anthropometric study of the cranial parameters using Computed Tomography (CT) scan to establish cephalic index of a sampled population in Calabar, Nigeria. GJPAS 2019; 25: 153.
• 6. Allanson JE, Cunniff C, Hoyme HE, McGaughran J, Muenke M, Neri G. Elements of morphology: standard terminology for the head and face. Am J Med Genet A 2009; 149A: 6-28.
• 7. Martin R, Knussmann R. Anthropologic Des Menarche.Band I. Stuttgart: Fischer Verlag; 1988.
• 8. Kanchan T, Krishan K, Gupta A, Acharya J. A study of cranial variations based on craniometric indices in a South Indian population. J Craniofac Surg 2014; 25: 1645-9.
• 9. Williams P, Dyson M, Dussak J, Bannister L, Berry M, Collins P. Gray's Anatomy. London, Churchill Livingston. 1995.
• 10. Sekerci R, Ogut E, Keles-Celik N. The influences of porus acusticus internus on ethnicity and importance in preoperative and intraoperative approaches. Surg Radiol Anat 2021; 43: 1829-38.
• 11. Ogut E, Armagan K, Barut C. Reappraisal of the types of trigeminal porus and importance in surgical applications. Surg Radiol Anat 2021; 43: 1169-78.
• 12. Akdag UB, Ogut E, Barut C. Intraforaminal Dural Septations of the Jugular Foramen: A Cadaveric Study. World Neurosurg 2020; 141: e718-27. 13. Ogut E, Akdag UB, Kilincli MF, Barut C. Reappraisal of the types of hypoglossal canal: endocranial approach. Anat Sci Int 2022; 97: 399-408.
• 14. Gupta S, Gopichand PVV, Kaushal S, Chhabra S, Garsa V. Cranial anthropometry in 600 north indian adults. Int J Anat Res 2013; 1: 115-18.
• 15. Pandey N, CB J, Yadav G, Sah S, Yadav P, Awasthi J. Study of cephalic index in nepalese medical students. Int J Anat Res 2016; 4: 3253-6.
• 16. Salve VM, Thota NR, Patibandla A. The Study of Cephalic Index of Andhra Region (India). Asian Journal of Medical Sciences 2011; 2.
• 17. Chaudhary RK, Sah SK, Parajuli SB, Pokhrel S, Deo SK. Pattern of Cephalic Index among Medical Students of a Medical College of Eastern Nepal. J Coll Med Sci Nepal 2019; 15: 256-9.
• 18. Howale DS, Mishra A, Asthana AK, Sharma D, Gaikwad PG. Evaluation of Race by Cranial Index of Adult Human Skull in Maharastra Population. J Anat Soc India 2012; 61: 258-61.
• 19. Pietrusewsky M. A multivariate analysis of measurements recorded in early and more modern crania from East Asia and Southeast Asia. Quaternary International 2010; 211: 42-54.
• 20. Botwe BO, Boadu JNA, Kyei KA, John D, Thompson. Radiological determination of the cranial index of present-day Ghanaians. Forensic Sci Res 2021; 7: 138-41.
• 21. Woo EJ, Jung H, Tansatit T. Cranial index in a modern people of Thai ancestry. Anat Cell Biol 2018; 51: 25-30.
• 22. Nascimento J, Ribeiro E, Neto E, Araujo-Neto S, Holanda M, França C. Cranial measurement indices in the state of paraiba, northeast of brazil. IJAR 2016; 4: 2637-42.
• 23. Madadi S, Khanehzad M, Tahmasebi F, Kyei G, Hassanzadeh G. Correlation of Horizontal Cephalic Index and Cranial Parameters in Iranian Medical Students. Acta Medica Iranica 2018; 56: 577-84.
• 24. Stolovitzky JP, Todd NW. Head shape and abnormal appearance of tympanic membranes. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1990; 102: 322- 5.
• 25. Cohen MM Jr, Kreiborg S. Cranial size and configuration in the Apert syndrome. J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol 1994; 14: 153-62.