Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Analysis of Facial Height between Prepubertal and Postpubertal Subjects in Rivers State, Nigeria

Analysis of Facial Height between Prepubertal and Postpubertal Subjects in Rivers State, Nigeria Hindawi Publishing Corporation Journal of Anthropology Volume 2013, Article ID 308212, 5 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/308212 Research Article Analysis of Facial Height between Prepubertal and Postpubertal Subjects in Rivers State, Nigeria 1,2 1 B. O. Akinbami and Mark Ikpeama Department of Human Anatomy, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Nigeria Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Nigeria Correspondence should be addressed to B. O. Akinbami; akinbamzy3@yahoo.com Received 27 March 2013; Revised 31 May 2013; Accepted 2 June 2013 Academic Editor: Kaushik Bose Copyright © 2013 B. O. Akinbami and M. Ikpeama. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Background. Appropriate craniofacial growth is vital both for aesthesis and normal growth of the brain. Cranial indices and facial heights are relevant parameters that are useful for anthropometric analyses of the growth of the entire craniofacial skeletal complex. The aim of this study was to determine differences in facial heights between prepubertal and postpubertal subjects. Method.The study consists of four hundred subjects, two hundred males and two hundred females who were selected at random on the ages ranging 12–16 and 17–25 years and were categorized into prepubertal and postpubertal. The facial parameters that were measured were upper facial height, lower facial height, and posterior facial height. Result. er Th e was no significant difference found in the upper facial height between prepubertal and postpubertal females (𝑃 > 0.005 ). Conclusion. This study has shown that facial parameters are sexually dimorphic between male and female subjects and that male facial dimension was significantly higher than that of females. Also, it has been established that prepubertal subjects had higher facial dimension compared to corresponding postpubertal subjects. 1. Introduction changesinhormonallevelsespeciallythesexand growthhor- mones, there may be corresponding changes in anthropomet- The craniofacial complex is divided into three and these ric craniofacial parameters in various age groups. eTh pur- includethe cranium, upperface, andthe lowerface[1]. pose of our study was therefore to determine differences in Facial aesthetic appreciation by the human mind is closely facial heights between prepubertal and postpubertal subjects. related proportions of the component portions in harmony [2]. This is because discrepancies or alterations in craniofacial 2. Materials and Methods proportions result in facial/body dimorphic syndromes in certain individuals especially when it far deviates from This was a randomized cross-sectional study which involved acceptable norms for a particular ethnic or racial population prepubertal and postpubertal subjects and was conducted [3–5]. However, thegrowthofthe upperand lowerjaw is in the Department of Anatomy, University of Port Har- determined by the growth of the base of the skull. Failure of court, Rivers State, south-south geopolitical zone of Nigeria, thecranium andbaseofthe skulltoincreaseinsizecausesa between July 2012 and October 2012. Ethical clearance was remarkable decrease in the size of the maxilla and mandible obtained from the Research and Ethics and Committee of the [6]. It is generally established in the literature that growth and College of Health Sciences, University of Port Harcourt, as discrepancies in sizes are under both genetic and environ- well as informed consent from each subject before inclusion. mental influence of which hormonal factor plays a significant role [7]. eTh re are signicfi ant dieff rences in hormonal levels at The study consists of a total of four hundred subjects, two different stages of life [ 8]. eTh expectation is that, with such hundred males (one hundred belong to the prepubertal 2 Journal of Anthropology which was 12–16 yrs of age group and one hundred to the eTh person is one of the authors. With the indication postpubertal, 17–25 yrs of age group). Similarly 200 females of the landmarks with pen markers, accuracy was were selected. eTh age selection was based on dieff rences ensured and since heights are continuous/parametric in hormonal levels before and aeft r puberty. Individuals measurements, values of a single assessor are valid. with craniofacial abnormalities as in craniosynostosis, sickle (vii) It was ensured that subjects did not laugh, talk, chew, cell disease, and other syndromes aeff cting the craniofacial or smile during the measurements to avoid errors. morphology were excluded. Also individuals below 12 were (viii) Measurements were accident free exercise by observ- excluded because these were much younger children whose ing some level of carefulness to avoid injury bearing parameters are obviously lower and for individuals above in mind that the caliper had pointed ends. 25 yrs; complete fusion of the epiphysis plates had already set (ix) Error due to parallax was avoided while taking read- in. ings from the digital caliper. The materials used for this study include The data collected were analyzed using descriptive statis- (i) electronic digital caliper, tics (mean, ranges, and standard deviation) and comparison (ii) paper, between prepubertal and postpubertal groups was done using (iii) pen, 𝑡 -test. All these were done with the statistical software, SPSS version 16 (SPSS Inc.) Illinois, Chicago. (iv) calculator, (v) methylated spirit and cotton wool. 3. Results The facial parameters were taken based on standardized The distribution of the subjects according to specific ages and methods [9, 10]. These include the following. ranges of the facial height values are shown in Tables 1 and 2. To a large extent, males generally have higher heights than Upper Facial Height (UFH). Using the digital caliper, this was females for most of the ages. measured as the distance between the glabella and the nasal The results on Table 3 showed higher mean values for sill. UPHand PFHinprepubertymales than postpubertymales. Lower Facial Height (LFH). Using the digital caliper, this was eTh re were signicfi ant differences between prepubertal and postpubertal males in upper facial heights and posterior facial measured as the distance between the nasal sill and the chin. heights (𝑃 < 0.05 ). However, no significant difference was Posterior Facial Height (PFH).This wasalsomeasuredasthe found in the lower facial heights between prepubertal and postpubertal males (𝑃>0.05 ). distance from the tragus of the ear and the soft tissue around In Table 4, mean values were higher for the three heights the angle of the mandible. in females in pre puberty ages compared to postpubertal (i) eTh subjects were asked to sit upright with head un- females. There was significant difference between prepubertal supported, relaxed, and breathe quietly as measure- and postpubertal females in their lower facial height and ments were taken to prevent errors from soft tissue posterior facial height (𝑃 < 0.05 ). However, there was contractions. no significant difference found in the upper facial height between prepubertal and postpubertal females (𝑃>0.05 ). (ii) The previous landmarks, that is, the glabella, nasal The range (difference between maximum and minimum) sill,chin, tragus,and softtissuearoundthe angleof values have been pictorially represented in Figure 1.UFH and the mandible were indicated with a pen marker. This PFH were higher for pre puberty males than post puberty allows point-to-point measurement and prevented males. intraassessor errors. The range values have been pictorially represented in (iii) The digital caliper was set on the 0.00 mm before each Figure 2. Range values were lower in the three heights in the reading was taken to ensure standardization of the prepuberty femalesthanpostpuberty females. measuring tool. 4. Discussion (iv) eTh upper, lower, and posterior facial heights for each subject was taken and recorded. This study gave an insight into the facial height between (v) eTh n the digital caliper was cleaned with cotton wool prepubertal and postpubertal subjects in Rivers State, south- soaked in methylated spirit aer ft each measurement. south, Nigeria. eTh relative positions of the spatial relations We followed universally accepted measurements for of the nose, lips, and chin are contributors to the skeletal anthropological studies which are usually done with tissues to achieve a balanced facial profile. Measurement of calipers with 2 pointed ends and distances between thefaceshowedthatmales in comparison with femaleshad the ends were measured. wider and higher faces, bigger minimal frontal breadth, and (vi) Measurements were made twice to ensure consistency upper facial depth [11]. Underdevelopment of the jaws can andaccuratereadingstaken by onebut thesameper- also result in psychological problems and local effects such son for all the subjects to avoid interassessor errors. as excessive pressure on the temporomandibular joint. Stress Journal of Anthropology 3 Table 1: Distribution based on age and ranges of facial height values of 100 prepubertal females and 100 prepubertal males (12–16 yrs). Female (100) Male (100) Age N (%) UFH (mm) LFH (mm) PFH (mm) N (%) UFH (mm) LFH (mm) PFH (mm) 12 yrs 3 (3) 56.96–64.33 49.50–55.19 60.44–75.93 5 (5) 54.99–65.69 58.96–62.66 55.46–75.78 13 yrs 18 (18) 53.61–68.76 49.89–64.43 63.07–75.45 17 (17) 53.47–70.02 52.55–64.29 53.98–84.91 14 yrs 24 (18) 56.08–72.92 52.52–72.70 63.66–77.51 24 (24) 57.48–66.33 54.05–72.55 56.56–83.59 15 yrs 37 (37) 56.15–74.55 50.41–65.01 61.94–79.45 38 (38) 54.28–68.02 56.15–70.67 59.87–79.48 16 yrs 18 (18) 56.84–65.70 52.56–70.97 58.34–73.34 16 (16) 59.31–74.43 53.68–71.87 65.57–78.72 Total 100 53.61–74.55 49.50–72.70 58.34–79.45 100 53.47–74.43 52.55–72.55 53.98–84.91 Table 2: Distribution based on age and ranges of facial height values of 100 postpubertal females and 100 postpubertal males (17–25 yrs). Females (100) Males (100) Age N (%) UFH (mm) LFH (mm) PFH (mm) N (%) UFH (mm) LFH (mm) PFH (mm) 17 yrs 11 (11) 51.24–64.39 49.50–63.40 49.42–67.91 14 (14) 54.99–68.68 52.21–69.08 55.80–80.62 18 yrs 3 (3) 57.21–58.60 51.76–57.85 64.84–65.32 8 (8) 58.71–64.80 58.18–63.83 62.71–69.94 19 yrs 5 (5) 57.60–59.60 51.85–62.31 59.46–72.11 5 (5) 56.32–62.76 53.68–60.50 59.51–70.07 20 yrs 15 (15) 47.21–65.92 40.55–68.21 53.51–73.12 10 (5) 54.59–64.76 57.71–66.27 59.81–69.71 21 yrs 15 (15) 60.12–63.86 56.23–63.71 51.92–77.70 5 (5) 62.31–66.29 54.72–60.96 66.42–70.10 22 yrs 8 (8) 44.68–67.80 42.99–68.48 51.18–72.28 17 (17) 55.83–65.86 56.08–67.47 58.92–74.15 23 yrs 24 (24) 53.16–60.45 50.51–59.47 61.26–69.26 8 (8) 56.88–64.91 59.54–75.59 62.04–70.52 24 yrs 7 (7) 53.95–69.17 41.12–64.83 57.25–65.16 16 (16) 57.38–69.32 60.59–70.45 61.79–83.59 25 yrs 12 (12) 57.80–67.81 44.68–69.26 51.52–77.91 16 (16) 56.50–68.21 58.95–71.04 58.58–78.49 Total 100 44.68–69.17 40.55–69.26 49.42–77.91 100 54.59–69.32 52.21–75.59 55.80–83.59 Table 3: Range, mean and standard deviation values of facial height 35 of 100 prepubertal males and 100 postpubertal males. Significance Prepubertal Postpubertal value Parameter Inference males (mm) males (mm) P value set at 0.05 Upper facial 53.47–74.43, 54.59–69.32, 0.012 Significant height 62.96±3.92 61.66±3.37 Lower facial 52.55–72.55, 52.21–75.59, Not 0.33 height 62.17±4.59 62.81±4.74 significant Posterior 53.98–84.91, 55.80–83.59, 0.002 Significant facial height 69.97±5.81 67.62±4.87 UFH LFH PFH 𝑃<0.05 is considered significant. Prepuberty Table 4: Range, mean and standard deviation values of facial heights Postpuberty of 100 prepubertal females and 100 postpubertal females. Figure 1: Range values for facial height between 100 prepuberty Significance Prepubertal Postpubertal males and 100 postpuberty males. value Parameter females females Inference P value set (mm) (mm) at 0.05 Our ndin fi gs suggest that facial height is sexually dimor- Upper facial 53.61–74.55, 44.68–69.17, Not 0.16 phic and depends on sex hormones which are thought to be height 62.16±3.98 61.26±4.94 significant the main regulators of sexual dimorphism in physical fea- Lower facial 49.50–72.70, 40.55–69.26, 0.00 Significant tures in males and females; prepubertal subjects had higher height 59.03±4.25 55.66±6.95 facial dimension compared to postpubertal subjects which Posterior 58.34–79.45, 49.42–77.91, 0.00 Significant suggests that sex hormones during puberty can influence facial height 70.23±4.47 62.91±6.70 growth rate pattern and facial height for the corresponding subjects. Prenatal testosterone concentrations are thought to can further aggravate these problems because some people modify development rate [8]. From the results obtained, it subconsciously clench and grind their teeth [12]. is suggested that early organizational effect of sex hormones 4 Journal of Anthropology 35 occlusion and esthetic facial profiles. In addition, many indi- viduals, especially young adults are very conscious of their facial appearance and are fond of peer comparisons; this occa- sionally result in some paranoid tendencies; [17] therefore mean values obtained for both groups under consideration in this study will assist us to establish a basis of comparison. In conclusion, we compared the mean and range values of upper facial, lower facial, and posterior facial heights in the prepubertal and postpubertal age brackets of both genders and we found that prepubertal values were higher in males for the UFH and PFH and not significantly different for LFH, and mean values and range values were also more consistent for males than females. eTh main distinguishing UFH LFH PFH highlight of this study from other studies is the analysis of these facial parameters in two different age brackets closely Prepuberty related to puberty and the establishment of the fact that facial Postpuberty dimensions do not necessarily increase as age increases. Figure 2: Range values for facial height between 100 prepuberty females and 100 postpuberty females. Conflict of Interests The authors hereby declare that none had any conflict of interests with regard to this research. eTh y also declare that neither one of them has a direct financial relation that can through the association between indices of body shape, body cause any conflict with the commercial identities like SPSS, mass index (BMI), and human growth pattern influenced the mentioned in their paper. facial parameters [13]. eTh result of our study showed that values of the facial References heights obtained for males were found to be higher than the corresponding female values. This corroborates earlier [1] C. S. Sinnatamby, Last’s Anatomy, Harcort Publishers, 10th edi- investigations [5, 10]. Mean values and range values were tion, 1999. more consistent in males than females generally; pre puberty [2] J. Rabanus, “Smile proportions, Golden proportions,” 2003, males had higher mean and range values than post puberty http://www.aesthetic-dentistry.com/. males for upper facial and posterior facial heights. This may [3] F. A. Basciftci, T. Uysal, and A. Buyukerkmen, “Craniofacial be a result of the random nature of selection of the subjects or structure of Anatolian Turkish adults with normal occlusions it could actually be a reflection of the increased level of hor- and well-balanced faces,” American Journal of Orthodontics and monal uc fl tuations in females compared to males at all phases Dentofacial Orthopedics,vol.125,no. 3, pp.366–372,2004. of life but more especially around the menarche/puberty [4] K.A.Phillips, S. L. McElroy, P. E. Keck Jr., J. I. Hudson,and period [13]. H. G. Pope Jr., “A comparison of delusional and nondelusional For subjects in the pre puberty ages to record higher body dysmorphic disorder in 100 cases,” Psychopharmacology values than post puberty, it is shown that hormonal levels Bulletin, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 179–186, 1994. at that age bracket are usually higher than that at the [5] F. B. Quinn, Preoperative Evaluation of the Aesthetic Patient. postpubertal age group. This however did not reflect for Grand Rounds Presentation, UTMB, Dept. of Otolaryngology, the lower values of lower facial height in prepubertal males, [6] P. A. Lines, R. R. Lines, and C. A. Lines, “Profilemetrics and which was difficult to explain but may not be unrelated to the facial esthetics,” American Journal of Orthodontics,vol.73, no. differential apposition in growth of the various endochondral 6, pp. 648–657, 1978. ossification sites in the mandible, 2 anterior, present in the [7] J.C.Kolar andE.M.Salter, “Craniofacial Anthropometry: Prac- (symphysis and alveolar arch) and 2 posterior (condyle and tical Measurement of the Head and Face for Clinical, Surgical, coronoid). Inu fl ence of hormones on these growth centers andResearchUse,” C. C. oTh mas, Springfield,Ill,USA,1997. may also be different [ 14]. Maxillary growth responsible for [8] B. S. McEwen, “Neural gonadal steroid actions,” Science,vol.211, increases in upper facial height is purely membranous while no. 4488, pp. 1303–1311, 1981. mandibular growth is both mainly membranous but with [9] E. Nagle, U. Teibe, and D. Kapoka, “Craniofacial Anthropome- substantial contribution from endochondral ossification [ 15]. tryinagroupofhealthy Latvianresidents,” Acta Medica Lituan- This study included subjects from the African Negro ica,vol.12, no.1,pp. 47–53, 2005. population; a similar study in a different population group [10] B. C. Didia and D. V. Dapper, “Facial, nasal, maxillary, mandibu- will enhance thorough comparison of such parameters. Radi- lar and orofacial heights of adult Nigerians,” OJM,vol.17, no.1-2, ological assessment with CT scans or cephalometry analysis pp. 1–8, 2005. may further consolidate the accuracy of these ndin fi gs [ 16]. [11] L. G. Farkas, T. A. Hreczko, J. C. Kolar, and I. R. Munro, “Vertical Orthodontists, orthognathic, maxillofacial, and reconstruc- and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult North tive surgeons will benefit from the results of this study American Caucasians: revision of neoclassical canons,” Plastic when attempting to give patients a close to normal or ideal and Reconstructive Surgery,vol.75, no.3,pp. 328–337, 1985. Journal of Anthropology 5 [12] Y. Jefferson, “Facial proportions and human health,” Journal of General Orthodontics,vol.7,no. 2, pp.250–273,1996. [13] M. L. Collaer and M. Hines, “Human behavioral sex differences: a role for gonadal hormones during early development?” Psy- chological Bulletin,vol.118,no. 1, pp.55–107, 1995. [14] K. L. Moore and A. F. Dalley, Head and Neck; Clinically Oriented Anatomy, Lippincott-Williams and Wiilkins, Philadelphia, Pa, USA, 1999. [15] R. M. Ricketts, “Esthetics, environment, and the law of lip rela- tion,” American Journal of Orthodontics,vol.54, no.4,pp. 272– 289, 1968. [16] G. B. Scheideman, W. H. Bell, H. L. Legan, R. A. Finn, and J. S. Reisch, “Cephalometric analysis of dentofacial normals,” Ameri- can Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 404–420, 1980. [17] H. Peck and S. Peck, “A concept of facial esthetics,” The Angle Orthodontist, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 284–318, 1970. Child Development Research Nursing Economics Journal of Autism Research and Treatment Research International Biomedical Education Research and Practice Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Journal of Criminology Journal of Archaeology Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Submit your manuscripts at http://www.hindawi.com International Journal of Education Population Research Research International Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Journal of Journal of Depression Research Schizophrenia Sleep Disorders and Treatment Anthropology Addiction Research and Treatment Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Geography Psychiatry Journal Journal Current Gerontology & Geriatrics Research Urban Studies Journal of Aging Research Research Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Anthropology Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Analysis of Facial Height between Prepubertal and Postpubertal Subjects in Rivers State, Nigeria

Akinbami, B. O.; Ikpeama, Mark
Journal of Anthropology , Volume 2013 – Jun 16, 2013
Download PDF
6 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/hindawi-publishing-corporation/analysis-of-facial-height-between-prepubertal-and-postpubertal-JYFgwEnT8O

References (18)

Publisher
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 B. O. Akinbami and Mark Ikpeama. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
ISSN
2090-4045
DOI
10.1155/2013/308212
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Hindawi Publishing Corporation Journal of Anthropology Volume 2013, Article ID 308212, 5 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/308212 Research Article Analysis of Facial Height between Prepubertal and Postpubertal Subjects in Rivers State, Nigeria 1,2 1 B. O. Akinbami and Mark Ikpeama Department of Human Anatomy, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Nigeria Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Nigeria Correspondence should be addressed to B. O. Akinbami; akinbamzy3@yahoo.com Received 27 March 2013; Revised 31 May 2013; Accepted 2 June 2013 Academic Editor: Kaushik Bose Copyright © 2013 B. O. Akinbami and M. Ikpeama. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Background. Appropriate craniofacial growth is vital both for aesthesis and normal growth of the brain. Cranial indices and facial heights are relevant parameters that are useful for anthropometric analyses of the growth of the entire craniofacial skeletal complex. The aim of this study was to determine differences in facial heights between prepubertal and postpubertal subjects. Method.The study consists of four hundred subjects, two hundred males and two hundred females who were selected at random on the ages ranging 12–16 and 17–25 years and were categorized into prepubertal and postpubertal. The facial parameters that were measured were upper facial height, lower facial height, and posterior facial height. Result. er Th e was no significant difference found in the upper facial height between prepubertal and postpubertal females (𝑃 > 0.005 ). Conclusion. This study has shown that facial parameters are sexually dimorphic between male and female subjects and that male facial dimension was significantly higher than that of females. Also, it has been established that prepubertal subjects had higher facial dimension compared to corresponding postpubertal subjects. 1. Introduction changesinhormonallevelsespeciallythesexand growthhor- mones, there may be corresponding changes in anthropomet- The craniofacial complex is divided into three and these ric craniofacial parameters in various age groups. eTh pur- includethe cranium, upperface, andthe lowerface[1]. pose of our study was therefore to determine differences in Facial aesthetic appreciation by the human mind is closely facial heights between prepubertal and postpubertal subjects. related proportions of the component portions in harmony [2]. This is because discrepancies or alterations in craniofacial 2. Materials and Methods proportions result in facial/body dimorphic syndromes in certain individuals especially when it far deviates from This was a randomized cross-sectional study which involved acceptable norms for a particular ethnic or racial population prepubertal and postpubertal subjects and was conducted [3–5]. However, thegrowthofthe upperand lowerjaw is in the Department of Anatomy, University of Port Har- determined by the growth of the base of the skull. Failure of court, Rivers State, south-south geopolitical zone of Nigeria, thecranium andbaseofthe skulltoincreaseinsizecausesa between July 2012 and October 2012. Ethical clearance was remarkable decrease in the size of the maxilla and mandible obtained from the Research and Ethics and Committee of the [6]. It is generally established in the literature that growth and College of Health Sciences, University of Port Harcourt, as discrepancies in sizes are under both genetic and environ- well as informed consent from each subject before inclusion. mental influence of which hormonal factor plays a significant role [7]. eTh re are signicfi ant dieff rences in hormonal levels at The study consists of a total of four hundred subjects, two different stages of life [ 8]. eTh expectation is that, with such hundred males (one hundred belong to the prepubertal 2 Journal of Anthropology which was 12–16 yrs of age group and one hundred to the eTh person is one of the authors. With the indication postpubertal, 17–25 yrs of age group). Similarly 200 females of the landmarks with pen markers, accuracy was were selected. eTh age selection was based on dieff rences ensured and since heights are continuous/parametric in hormonal levels before and aeft r puberty. Individuals measurements, values of a single assessor are valid. with craniofacial abnormalities as in craniosynostosis, sickle (vii) It was ensured that subjects did not laugh, talk, chew, cell disease, and other syndromes aeff cting the craniofacial or smile during the measurements to avoid errors. morphology were excluded. Also individuals below 12 were (viii) Measurements were accident free exercise by observ- excluded because these were much younger children whose ing some level of carefulness to avoid injury bearing parameters are obviously lower and for individuals above in mind that the caliper had pointed ends. 25 yrs; complete fusion of the epiphysis plates had already set (ix) Error due to parallax was avoided while taking read- in. ings from the digital caliper. The materials used for this study include The data collected were analyzed using descriptive statis- (i) electronic digital caliper, tics (mean, ranges, and standard deviation) and comparison (ii) paper, between prepubertal and postpubertal groups was done using (iii) pen, 𝑡 -test. All these were done with the statistical software, SPSS version 16 (SPSS Inc.) Illinois, Chicago. (iv) calculator, (v) methylated spirit and cotton wool. 3. Results The facial parameters were taken based on standardized The distribution of the subjects according to specific ages and methods [9, 10]. These include the following. ranges of the facial height values are shown in Tables 1 and 2. To a large extent, males generally have higher heights than Upper Facial Height (UFH). Using the digital caliper, this was females for most of the ages. measured as the distance between the glabella and the nasal The results on Table 3 showed higher mean values for sill. UPHand PFHinprepubertymales than postpubertymales. Lower Facial Height (LFH). Using the digital caliper, this was eTh re were signicfi ant differences between prepubertal and postpubertal males in upper facial heights and posterior facial measured as the distance between the nasal sill and the chin. heights (𝑃 < 0.05 ). However, no significant difference was Posterior Facial Height (PFH).This wasalsomeasuredasthe found in the lower facial heights between prepubertal and postpubertal males (𝑃>0.05 ). distance from the tragus of the ear and the soft tissue around In Table 4, mean values were higher for the three heights the angle of the mandible. in females in pre puberty ages compared to postpubertal (i) eTh subjects were asked to sit upright with head un- females. There was significant difference between prepubertal supported, relaxed, and breathe quietly as measure- and postpubertal females in their lower facial height and ments were taken to prevent errors from soft tissue posterior facial height (𝑃 < 0.05 ). However, there was contractions. no significant difference found in the upper facial height between prepubertal and postpubertal females (𝑃>0.05 ). (ii) The previous landmarks, that is, the glabella, nasal The range (difference between maximum and minimum) sill,chin, tragus,and softtissuearoundthe angleof values have been pictorially represented in Figure 1.UFH and the mandible were indicated with a pen marker. This PFH were higher for pre puberty males than post puberty allows point-to-point measurement and prevented males. intraassessor errors. The range values have been pictorially represented in (iii) The digital caliper was set on the 0.00 mm before each Figure 2. Range values were lower in the three heights in the reading was taken to ensure standardization of the prepuberty femalesthanpostpuberty females. measuring tool. 4. Discussion (iv) eTh upper, lower, and posterior facial heights for each subject was taken and recorded. This study gave an insight into the facial height between (v) eTh n the digital caliper was cleaned with cotton wool prepubertal and postpubertal subjects in Rivers State, south- soaked in methylated spirit aer ft each measurement. south, Nigeria. eTh relative positions of the spatial relations We followed universally accepted measurements for of the nose, lips, and chin are contributors to the skeletal anthropological studies which are usually done with tissues to achieve a balanced facial profile. Measurement of calipers with 2 pointed ends and distances between thefaceshowedthatmales in comparison with femaleshad the ends were measured. wider and higher faces, bigger minimal frontal breadth, and (vi) Measurements were made twice to ensure consistency upper facial depth [11]. Underdevelopment of the jaws can andaccuratereadingstaken by onebut thesameper- also result in psychological problems and local effects such son for all the subjects to avoid interassessor errors. as excessive pressure on the temporomandibular joint. Stress Journal of Anthropology 3 Table 1: Distribution based on age and ranges of facial height values of 100 prepubertal females and 100 prepubertal males (12–16 yrs). Female (100) Male (100) Age N (%) UFH (mm) LFH (mm) PFH (mm) N (%) UFH (mm) LFH (mm) PFH (mm) 12 yrs 3 (3) 56.96–64.33 49.50–55.19 60.44–75.93 5 (5) 54.99–65.69 58.96–62.66 55.46–75.78 13 yrs 18 (18) 53.61–68.76 49.89–64.43 63.07–75.45 17 (17) 53.47–70.02 52.55–64.29 53.98–84.91 14 yrs 24 (18) 56.08–72.92 52.52–72.70 63.66–77.51 24 (24) 57.48–66.33 54.05–72.55 56.56–83.59 15 yrs 37 (37) 56.15–74.55 50.41–65.01 61.94–79.45 38 (38) 54.28–68.02 56.15–70.67 59.87–79.48 16 yrs 18 (18) 56.84–65.70 52.56–70.97 58.34–73.34 16 (16) 59.31–74.43 53.68–71.87 65.57–78.72 Total 100 53.61–74.55 49.50–72.70 58.34–79.45 100 53.47–74.43 52.55–72.55 53.98–84.91 Table 2: Distribution based on age and ranges of facial height values of 100 postpubertal females and 100 postpubertal males (17–25 yrs). Females (100) Males (100) Age N (%) UFH (mm) LFH (mm) PFH (mm) N (%) UFH (mm) LFH (mm) PFH (mm) 17 yrs 11 (11) 51.24–64.39 49.50–63.40 49.42–67.91 14 (14) 54.99–68.68 52.21–69.08 55.80–80.62 18 yrs 3 (3) 57.21–58.60 51.76–57.85 64.84–65.32 8 (8) 58.71–64.80 58.18–63.83 62.71–69.94 19 yrs 5 (5) 57.60–59.60 51.85–62.31 59.46–72.11 5 (5) 56.32–62.76 53.68–60.50 59.51–70.07 20 yrs 15 (15) 47.21–65.92 40.55–68.21 53.51–73.12 10 (5) 54.59–64.76 57.71–66.27 59.81–69.71 21 yrs 15 (15) 60.12–63.86 56.23–63.71 51.92–77.70 5 (5) 62.31–66.29 54.72–60.96 66.42–70.10 22 yrs 8 (8) 44.68–67.80 42.99–68.48 51.18–72.28 17 (17) 55.83–65.86 56.08–67.47 58.92–74.15 23 yrs 24 (24) 53.16–60.45 50.51–59.47 61.26–69.26 8 (8) 56.88–64.91 59.54–75.59 62.04–70.52 24 yrs 7 (7) 53.95–69.17 41.12–64.83 57.25–65.16 16 (16) 57.38–69.32 60.59–70.45 61.79–83.59 25 yrs 12 (12) 57.80–67.81 44.68–69.26 51.52–77.91 16 (16) 56.50–68.21 58.95–71.04 58.58–78.49 Total 100 44.68–69.17 40.55–69.26 49.42–77.91 100 54.59–69.32 52.21–75.59 55.80–83.59 Table 3: Range, mean and standard deviation values of facial height 35 of 100 prepubertal males and 100 postpubertal males. Significance Prepubertal Postpubertal value Parameter Inference males (mm) males (mm) P value set at 0.05 Upper facial 53.47–74.43, 54.59–69.32, 0.012 Significant height 62.96±3.92 61.66±3.37 Lower facial 52.55–72.55, 52.21–75.59, Not 0.33 height 62.17±4.59 62.81±4.74 significant Posterior 53.98–84.91, 55.80–83.59, 0.002 Significant facial height 69.97±5.81 67.62±4.87 UFH LFH PFH 𝑃<0.05 is considered significant. Prepuberty Table 4: Range, mean and standard deviation values of facial heights Postpuberty of 100 prepubertal females and 100 postpubertal females. Figure 1: Range values for facial height between 100 prepuberty Significance Prepubertal Postpubertal males and 100 postpuberty males. value Parameter females females Inference P value set (mm) (mm) at 0.05 Our ndin fi gs suggest that facial height is sexually dimor- Upper facial 53.61–74.55, 44.68–69.17, Not 0.16 phic and depends on sex hormones which are thought to be height 62.16±3.98 61.26±4.94 significant the main regulators of sexual dimorphism in physical fea- Lower facial 49.50–72.70, 40.55–69.26, 0.00 Significant tures in males and females; prepubertal subjects had higher height 59.03±4.25 55.66±6.95 facial dimension compared to postpubertal subjects which Posterior 58.34–79.45, 49.42–77.91, 0.00 Significant suggests that sex hormones during puberty can influence facial height 70.23±4.47 62.91±6.70 growth rate pattern and facial height for the corresponding subjects. Prenatal testosterone concentrations are thought to can further aggravate these problems because some people modify development rate [8]. From the results obtained, it subconsciously clench and grind their teeth [12]. is suggested that early organizational effect of sex hormones 4 Journal of Anthropology 35 occlusion and esthetic facial profiles. In addition, many indi- viduals, especially young adults are very conscious of their facial appearance and are fond of peer comparisons; this occa- sionally result in some paranoid tendencies; [17] therefore mean values obtained for both groups under consideration in this study will assist us to establish a basis of comparison. In conclusion, we compared the mean and range values of upper facial, lower facial, and posterior facial heights in the prepubertal and postpubertal age brackets of both genders and we found that prepubertal values were higher in males for the UFH and PFH and not significantly different for LFH, and mean values and range values were also more consistent for males than females. eTh main distinguishing UFH LFH PFH highlight of this study from other studies is the analysis of these facial parameters in two different age brackets closely Prepuberty related to puberty and the establishment of the fact that facial Postpuberty dimensions do not necessarily increase as age increases. Figure 2: Range values for facial height between 100 prepuberty females and 100 postpuberty females. Conflict of Interests The authors hereby declare that none had any conflict of interests with regard to this research. eTh y also declare that neither one of them has a direct financial relation that can through the association between indices of body shape, body cause any conflict with the commercial identities like SPSS, mass index (BMI), and human growth pattern influenced the mentioned in their paper. facial parameters [13]. eTh result of our study showed that values of the facial References heights obtained for males were found to be higher than the corresponding female values. This corroborates earlier [1] C. S. Sinnatamby, Last’s Anatomy, Harcort Publishers, 10th edi- investigations [5, 10]. Mean values and range values were tion, 1999. more consistent in males than females generally; pre puberty [2] J. Rabanus, “Smile proportions, Golden proportions,” 2003, males had higher mean and range values than post puberty http://www.aesthetic-dentistry.com/. males for upper facial and posterior facial heights. This may [3] F. A. Basciftci, T. Uysal, and A. Buyukerkmen, “Craniofacial be a result of the random nature of selection of the subjects or structure of Anatolian Turkish adults with normal occlusions it could actually be a reflection of the increased level of hor- and well-balanced faces,” American Journal of Orthodontics and monal uc fl tuations in females compared to males at all phases Dentofacial Orthopedics,vol.125,no. 3, pp.366–372,2004. of life but more especially around the menarche/puberty [4] K.A.Phillips, S. L. McElroy, P. E. Keck Jr., J. I. Hudson,and period [13]. H. G. Pope Jr., “A comparison of delusional and nondelusional For subjects in the pre puberty ages to record higher body dysmorphic disorder in 100 cases,” Psychopharmacology values than post puberty, it is shown that hormonal levels Bulletin, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 179–186, 1994. at that age bracket are usually higher than that at the [5] F. B. Quinn, Preoperative Evaluation of the Aesthetic Patient. postpubertal age group. This however did not reflect for Grand Rounds Presentation, UTMB, Dept. of Otolaryngology, the lower values of lower facial height in prepubertal males, [6] P. A. Lines, R. R. Lines, and C. A. Lines, “Profilemetrics and which was difficult to explain but may not be unrelated to the facial esthetics,” American Journal of Orthodontics,vol.73, no. differential apposition in growth of the various endochondral 6, pp. 648–657, 1978. ossification sites in the mandible, 2 anterior, present in the [7] J.C.Kolar andE.M.Salter, “Craniofacial Anthropometry: Prac- (symphysis and alveolar arch) and 2 posterior (condyle and tical Measurement of the Head and Face for Clinical, Surgical, coronoid). Inu fl ence of hormones on these growth centers andResearchUse,” C. C. oTh mas, Springfield,Ill,USA,1997. may also be different [ 14]. Maxillary growth responsible for [8] B. S. McEwen, “Neural gonadal steroid actions,” Science,vol.211, increases in upper facial height is purely membranous while no. 4488, pp. 1303–1311, 1981. mandibular growth is both mainly membranous but with [9] E. Nagle, U. Teibe, and D. Kapoka, “Craniofacial Anthropome- substantial contribution from endochondral ossification [ 15]. tryinagroupofhealthy Latvianresidents,” Acta Medica Lituan- This study included subjects from the African Negro ica,vol.12, no.1,pp. 47–53, 2005. population; a similar study in a different population group [10] B. C. Didia and D. V. Dapper, “Facial, nasal, maxillary, mandibu- will enhance thorough comparison of such parameters. Radi- lar and orofacial heights of adult Nigerians,” OJM,vol.17, no.1-2, ological assessment with CT scans or cephalometry analysis pp. 1–8, 2005. may further consolidate the accuracy of these ndin fi gs [ 16]. [11] L. G. Farkas, T. A. Hreczko, J. C. Kolar, and I. R. Munro, “Vertical Orthodontists, orthognathic, maxillofacial, and reconstruc- and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult North tive surgeons will benefit from the results of this study American Caucasians: revision of neoclassical canons,” Plastic when attempting to give patients a close to normal or ideal and Reconstructive Surgery,vol.75, no.3,pp. 328–337, 1985. Journal of Anthropology 5 [12] Y. Jefferson, “Facial proportions and human health,” Journal of General Orthodontics,vol.7,no. 2, pp.250–273,1996. [13] M. L. Collaer and M. Hines, “Human behavioral sex differences: a role for gonadal hormones during early development?” Psy- chological Bulletin,vol.118,no. 1, pp.55–107, 1995. [14] K. L. Moore and A. F. Dalley, Head and Neck; Clinically Oriented Anatomy, Lippincott-Williams and Wiilkins, Philadelphia, Pa, USA, 1999. [15] R. M. Ricketts, “Esthetics, environment, and the law of lip rela- tion,” American Journal of Orthodontics,vol.54, no.4,pp. 272– 289, 1968. [16] G. B. Scheideman, W. H. Bell, H. L. Legan, R. A. Finn, and J. S. Reisch, “Cephalometric analysis of dentofacial normals,” Ameri- can Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 404–420, 1980. [17] H. Peck and S. Peck, “A concept of facial esthetics,” The Angle Orthodontist, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 284–318, 1970. Child Development Research Nursing Economics Journal of Autism Research and Treatment Research International Biomedical Education Research and Practice Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Journal of Criminology Journal of Archaeology Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Submit your manuscripts at http://www.hindawi.com International Journal of Education Population Research Research International Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Journal of Journal of Depression Research Schizophrenia Sleep Disorders and Treatment Anthropology Addiction Research and Treatment Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Geography Psychiatry Journal Journal Current Gerontology & Geriatrics Research Urban Studies Journal of Aging Research Research Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com

Journal

Journal of Anthropology – Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Published: Jun 16, 2013

There are no references for this article.