Associating craniofacial morphometry determined by photo analysis with somatotype in healthy young individuals

Abstract

Objectives: Evaluation of the relationship between craniofacial parameters and somatotype provides important contributions to specialist physicians and anatomists in determining diseases and obtaining objective results of anthropometric measurements. The study was designed in line with this hypothesis and the aim was to find out how this relationship changed in healthy individuals.

Methods: The study was conducted by examining 191 healthy individuals between the ages of 18 and 30. The individuals’ faces were photographed from a distance of 1 meter and craniofacial parameters were measured in Image J program. Somatotype analysis was conducted by using Heath-Carter somatotype method.

Results: As a result of our study, the individuals were found to be grouped in four classes according to Heath-Carter somatotype method: (1) mesomorph endomorph, (2) endomorph ectomorph, (3) endomorph mesomorph and (4) central. Significant correlation was found between the second and first somatotype groups in terms of total nasal length, while significant correlation was found between second and first/second and third/fourth and third/first and third somatotype groups in terms of body mass index (BMI) parameter (p < 0.05). Craniofacial parameters were also evaluated and a very high correlation was found between total facial height and mandibular height, while there was a high correlation between total facial height and the other 16 parameters.

Conclusions: As a result of our study, a relationship was found between somatotype groups and craniofacial parameters, within craniofacial parameters, and between somatotype and BMI. We believe that this relationship will guide morphological studies in basic medical sciences and surgical interventions in clinical sciences.

Keywords

• Heath-Carter somatotype analysis
• craniofacial parameters
• photo analysis

References

1. 1. De Onis M, Habicht J-P. Anthropometric reference data for international use: recommendations from a World Health Organization Expert Committee. Am J Clin Nutr 1996;64:650-8.
2. 2. Özkoçak V, Koç F, Demir E, Yavuz Y. Antropometrik Ölçümlerin Tanimlanması. In: Demir E, Özkoçak V, eds., İstatistiksel Uygulamalarla Sağlık, Spor Ve Adli Bilimlerde Antropometrik Ölçümlere Dayalı Araştırma Tasarımları. Ankara: Nobel Tıp Kitapevi, 2019: pp.1-4.
3. 3. Şenol D, Altinoğlu M, Şeyma T, Kisaoğlu A, Özbağ D. Investigation of the relationship of Q Angle and stork balance stand test with somatotype in healthy young individuals. Medical Records 2019;1:60-6.
4. 4. Arpacı MF, Özbağ D, Aydın Ş, Şenol D, Baykara RA, Çiçek İB. Evaluation of the relationship between nasal septal deviation and development of facial asymmetry with anthropometric measurements depending on age. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2022:111207.
5. 5. Dmitrienko S, Domenyuk D, Melekhov S, Domenyuk S, Weisheim L. Analytical approach within cephalometric studies assessment in people with various somatotypes. Archiv EuroMedica 2019;9:103-11.
6. 6. Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Forrest CR, Litsas L. Surface anatomy of the face in Down's syndrome: linear and angular measurements in the craniofacial regions. J Craniofac Surg 2001;12:373-9.
7. 7. Gulsen A, Okay C, Aslan BI, Uner O, Yavuzer R. The relationship between craniofacial structures and the nose in Anatolian Turkish adults: a cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:131. e15-25.
8. 8. Özdemir F, Özkoçak V. [Nose, face types and their rates to each other in Anatolian men and their age-related changes]. J Int Lingual Soc Educ Sci 2017;3:135-42. [Article in Turkish]

9. 9. Mommaerts M, Moerenhout B. Ideal proportions in full face front view, contemporary versus antique. J Craniomaxillofac Sur 2011;39:107-10.
10. 10. Gökaslan ÇÖ. [The relationship of nasal septum deviation with facial asymmetry]. Kocatepe Med J 2019;20:157-61. [Article in Turkish]
11. 11. Arpacı MF, Özbağ D, Aydın Ş, Şenol D, Baykara RA, Çiçek İB. Evaluation of the relationship between nasal septal deviation and development of facial asymmetry with anthropometric measurements depending on age. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2022;159:111207.
12. 12. Toy Ş, Çiftçi R, Şenol D, Kizilay F, Ermiş H. Comparison of the effects of the somatotype on the physical activity, kinesiophobia, and fatigue levels of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome patients and healthy individuals. Iran J Public Health 2021;50:919-26.
13. 13. Çiftçi R, Kizilay F, Şeyma T, Şenol D, Akyol B, Ersoy Y, et al. [Evaluation of the relationship between nutritional status and somatotype profiles in children with physical sisability]. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Tıp Dergisi 2021;8:127-31. [Article in Turkish]
14. 14. Turnagöl HH, Demirel H, T. [Somatotype profile and relationship of some anthropometric variables with performance of Turkish national weightlifters]. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi 1992;3:11-8. [Article in Turkish]
15. 15. Kizilay F, Şeyma T. [Somatotype character analysis in elderly population - short review]. Medical Records 2019;1:37-40. [Article in Turkish]
16. 16. Pastuszak A, Gajewski J, Buśko K. The impact of skinfolds measurement on somatotype determination in Heath-Carter method. PLoS One 2019;14:e0222100.
17. 17. Carter J. Part 1: The Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotype-instruction manual. TeP and Rosscraft: Surrey, BA, Canada. 2002.
18. 18. Slankamenac J, Bjelica D, Jaksic D, Trivic T, Drapsin M, Vujkov S, et al. Somatotype profiles of Montenegrin Karatekas: an observational study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:12914.
19. 19. Şenol D, Altınoğlu M, Kısaoğlu A, Toy Ş, Duz S, Ozbağ D. Comparison of visual and auditory reaction times in athletes and sedentary individuals with different somatotypes: a neuroperformance study. Int J Sports Stud Health 2020;3:1-6.
20. 20. Campa F, Bongiovanni T, Matias CN, Genovesi F, Trecroci A, Rossi A, et al. A new strategy to integrate Heath-Carter somatotype assessment with bioelectrical impedance analysis in elite soccer players. Sports (Basel) 2020;8:142.
21. 21. Alvero-Cruz JR, Parent Mathias V, García-Romero JC. Somatotype components as useful predictors of disordered eating attitudes in young female ballet dance students. J Clin Med 2020;9:2024.
22. 22. Cote DJ, Smith TR, Kaiser UB, Laws Jr ER, Stampfer MJ. Body habitus across the lifespan and risk of pituitary adenoma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2021;106:1591-602.
23. 23. Divo MJ, Oto MM, Macario CC, Lopez CC, de-Torres JP, Trigo JMM, et al. Somatotypes trajectories during adulthood and their association with COPD phenotypes. ERJ Open Res 2020;6:00122-2020.
24. 24. Yasuda T. Anthropometric, body composition, and somatotype characteristics of Japanese young women: Implications for normal-weight obesity syndrome and sarcopenia diagnosis criteria. Interv Med Appl Sci 2019;11:117-21.
25. 25. Mantarkov MY, Ahmed-Popova FM. Minor physical anomalies, palmar dermatoglyphics and somatotype: composite anthropometric biomarker predictors in schizophrenia. Project. ResearcGate. 2017.
26. 26. Demir M, Emre A, Tümer MK, Çiçek M, Ahmet G, Altindağ A, et al. [Craniofacial morphometry of schizophrenia patients]. İnönü Üniversitesi Sağlık Biliimleri Dergisi 2017;6:10-8. [Article in Turkish]
27. 27. Lee RW, Petocz P, Prvan T, Chan AS, Grunstein RR, Cistulli PA. Prediction of obstructive sleep apnea with craniofacial photographic analysis. Sleep 2009;32:46-52.
28. 28. Kosif R. [Study on the relationship between personal properties and facial anatomy]. Kocatepe Med J 2019;20:137-41. [Article in Turkish]