ORIGINAL ARTICLE Year : 2022  Volume : 71  Issue : 4  Page : 279282 Correlation of cephalofacial parameters with body height in indian and african students of a university in North India Sreekala C Nair^{1}, Prajna Paramita Samanta^{2}, Poonam Kharb^{3}, ^{1} Department of Anatomy, School of Allied Health Sciences, Greater Noida, India ^{2} Department of Anatomy, School of Medical Sciences and Research, Greater Noida, India ^{3} Department of Human Anatomy, ITS Dental College, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India Correspondence Address: Introduction: In forensic anthropology, body height or stature estimation is important for identification of missing persons. Stature has a proportional relationship with different parts of the human body including cephalofacial region. The cephalofacial indices are different for different people. Therefore, they may help in stature reconstruction and identification of a person. The study was conducted to find out if there is any correlation between four cephalofacial parameters and body height and to derive regression formulae in Indian and African students. Material and Methods: The present study was conducted on 170 students of a University in North India belonging to two different races, i.e., Indian (85) and African (85). Stature and four cephalofacial dimensions, i.e., maximum head length (MHL), horizontal head circumference (HHC), morphological facial length (MFL) and bigonial diameter (BD) were measured. The data were analyzed using SPSS software version 15. Results: In both Indian and African students all the four cephalofacial parameters, i.e., MHL, HHC, MFL, and BD showed a positive correlation with stature (P < 0.001). It was found that in Indians the strongest correlation of stature was with MHL and least correlation was with HHC. In Africans, the highest correlation was observed with MHL and lowest with BD. Discussion and Conclusion: In this study, it was found that among the cephalofacial parameters, cephalic parameters are more reliable than facial parameters. Out of the two cephalic parameters HHC was found to be more reliable than MHL in the estimation of stature in both Indian and African students. The regression equations derived turned out to be population/racespecific and therefore, cannot be generalized for all population groups.
Introduction Stature is a very important anthropometric parameter used in identification of an individual. Height of body in standing position is defined as stature. Every part of the human body has a proportional relationship with stature including cephalofacial dimensions.[1] Craniofacial anthropometry involves measurements of parameters on the skull and face. The dimensions of the head and face are dependent on various factors, such as geography, genetic influence, and nutrition. Cephalofacial parameters are important and are used in identification of individuals, sex determination, and in classifying of races. Cephalofacial measurements also help in summarizing the anatomical complexity of the head and face of human being living within a similar geography. Various techniques are used to study craniofacial parameters.[2] Cephalometry is the most commonly used technique because it is simple, acceptable, practical, and valid.[3] Both radiological and osteological studies on cadaveric skull have been carried out to estimate stature.[4],[5],[6],[7] Body height or stature can be estimated from bones. Regression analysis is an easy and reliable method. Each race will require its own formula for estimation of stature.[8] Regression formulae obtained using major long bones are generally considered to be more accurate. However, studies using cephalofacial parameters to correlate with stature are few. The present study was conducted to find out the correlation between cephalofacial parameters and body height and also to assess which of these parameters is more accurate for estimation of stature as this could be of great help in identification of an individual when only craniofacial remains are available. Material and Methods The present study was conducted on 170 students of a University in North India belonging to two different races (85 students each of Indian and African origin between 18 and 25 years of age) after getting approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee. Informed written consent was obtained from each student before the study. The height was measured with the subject in standing position and being barefooted with close approximation of both the feet and head kept in Frankfurt's Plane. The following cephalofacial parameters were measured: Maximum head length (MHL) was measured as distance between glabella and opisthocranion (the area near the top of occipital bone)Horizontal head circumference (HHC) was measured as the maximum head circumference from just above the glabella area to the opisthocranionMorphological facial length (MFL) was measured as distance from root of nose (nasion) to the lowest point on the lower border of the mandible in the midsagittal plane (gnathion)Bigonial diameter (BD) was measured as the maximum breadth of the lower jaw between two gonion points on the angles of mandible. Measurements were taken at a fixed time between 14.00 and 16.30 h to exclude differences due to diurnal variation. The measurements were taken three times by the same person and the average was taken to minimize the errors in methodology. Multiple linear regression analyses were done for the estimation of stature using the above parameters. (SPSS Ver 20.0, IBM, USA). Results The mean height was found to be 165.20 ± 10.54 cm in Indian students and 169.49 ± 9.44 cm in African students, respectively. The mean values of MHL, HHC, MFL, and BD were found to be 18.19 ± 0.97 cm, 54.74 ± 0.22 cm, 10.77 ± 0.07 cm, and 9.85 ± 0.07 cm in Indians and 18.96 ± 0.09 cm, 57.28 ± 0.2 cm, 11.3 ± 0.08 cm, and 9.64 ± 0.07 cm in Africans, respectively [Table 1]].{Table 1} It was observed that the mean height, MHL, HHC, and MFL were higher in Africans than in Indian students whereas BD was higher in Indians. The mean BD of Indian students was found to be 9.85 ± 0.07 cm and in Africans, it was 9.64 ± 0.07 cm. It was observed that all cephalofacial parameters were higher in males than in females in Indian students However, in African students, the MHL, MFL, and BD were found to be higher in males whereas HHC was found to be higher in females. Correlation between height and the measured parameters was found out by calculating correlation coefficient. For MFL Carl Pearson correlation coefficient and for MHL, HHC, and BD Spearman rank correlation coefficient was calculated for both the races. In Indian students, all the cephalofacial parameters showed a significant correlation with stature. All these values were also found to be statistically highly significant (P < 0.001). It was found that in Indians the highest correlation of stature was with MHL and lowest correlation was with HHC. In Africans, all cephalofacial parameters showed a significant correlation with stature (P < 0.001). The highest correlation was observed with MHL and lowest with MFL [Table 2].{Table 2} After finding a positive correlation between the measured parameters (MHL, HHC, MFL, BD) and stature, regression analysis was done for the estimation of stature in both Indians and Africans. To calculate regression equations the values of constants “a” (regression coefficient of the dependent variable) and “b” (regression coefficient of the independent variable) were calculated. Then, the stature was calculated. [Table 3] shows the standard error of estimate (SEE). The SEE shows the difference in evaluated stature from the actual stature. A low SEE is suggestive of the higher reliableness of prediction from a measurement and high SEE denotes less reliableness of prediction.{Table 3} Among the cephalofacial parameters, HHC showed lowest value of SEE in Indians SEE (±0.47) and in Africans SEE (±0.52) which explains its higher reliability factor and accuracy in stature estimation as compared to the other three cephalofacial parameters measured in the study. In this study, it was also found that among the cephalofacial parameters, cephalic parameters are more reliable than facial parameters. Discussion The evaluation of stature from skull bones alone can be a difficult task. Nonavailability of body height data along with cephalofacial measurements is one of the difficulties faced in computing the stature estimation formula. In the present study, the four cephalofacial dimensions, i.e., MHL, HHC, MFL, and BD showed a positive correlation with stature in both Indian and African students. The correlation coefficient values of all four cephalofacial dimensions were more than 0.5 in Indian students which denotes there is a positive correlation between stature and cephalofacial parameters studied. However, in African students, MHL, HHC, and BD showed correlation coefficient values more than 0.5 whereas MFL had a lower value, i.e., 0.414 which means that MFL is not reliable for the evaluation of stature in African students. Agnihotri et al. observed that in the IndoMauritian population the correlation coefficient of cephalofacial dimensions were <0.5 in all cases.[9] Since correlation coefficient is significant only above 0.5, they concluded that there was no positive correlation between stature and cephalofacial parameters. Shah et al. found the correlation coefficient of all cephalofacial dimensions to be <0.5 which indicates stature estimation from cephalofacial dimensions is not reliable.[10] In the present study, among the four cephalofacial parameters, MHL showed the highest correlation coefficient value (0.62) for both Indian and African students. Similar findings were reported by Ilayperuma who studied the relationship between the cranial dimensions and height of adults in the Sri Lankan population and observed the correlation coefficient of MHL to be 0.72 and therefore MHL is significantly correlated with stature.[11] However, according to studies by Saxena et al. on Agra population, Jadav and Shah on Gujarat population, Sudhir et al. on Maharashtra population, Seema and Mahajan (2011) on Punjab population, Santosh et al. on Rajasthan population, Ryan and Bidmos on South African population, the range of correlation coefficients between stature and head length were ranging between 0.34 to 0.44 for females and 0.28 to 0.35 for males.[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17] In the present study, in Indian students, HHC showed the least correlation (0.53) and lowest value of SEE, i.e., 0.47. In African students, the highest correlation was shown by MHL (0.62) and then by HHC but HHC showed lower value of SEE (0.52). This indicates that the regression equation calculated for the HHC gives a higher level of reliability and accuracy in the estimation of stature in both Indian and African students. The findings of the present study are similar to the study conducted by Krishan and Kumar where the HHC showed lowest SEE (standard error of estimate) (3.72) which is higher than the SEE values of the present study (0.47).[5] Ewunonu and Anibeze observed that HHC exhibits the lowest value of SEE (6.93) than MHL (7.48) in the SouthEastern Nigerian population.[18] Ekezie et al. mentioned that the HHC did not show any positive correlation with stature in Igbos (South Eastern Nigerians).[19] However, in the present study, HHC showed good correlation (0.53) and lowest SEE (0.52) values in African students. From the above discussion, it can be concluded that out of the two cephalic parameters HHC was found to be more reliable than MHL in estimation of stature in both Indian and African students. MFL showed good correlation (0.57) with stature in Indian students, whereas in African students the correlation coefficient was 0.41 since correlation coefficient is considered significant only above 0.5, so it was concluded that MFL is not reliable for estimation of stature in African students. This is also confirmed by high SEE value of MHL (1.20). In studies conducted by Ekezie et al. in SouthEastern Nigerians and Kumar and Gopichand in Haryanvi adults, the SEE was found to be 7.34 (for both males and females) and 5.38 (males), respectively, whereas in the present study, the SEE of MFL for Indians was 1.35 and for Africans was 1.20 (for both males and females) which is comparatively lower than the above studies.[19],[20] Similar to the present study, Ekezie et al. observed MFL to be reliable for the estimation of stature due to low SEE as compared to other cephalofacial parameters.[19] Kumar and Gopichand concluded that MFL is less reliable as compared to other cephalofacial parameters.[20] Swami et al. estimated stature MFL and BD in Haryanvi Baniyas.[21] Both parameters showed a good correlation with stature, since MFL showed low value of SEE in males (5.3) and (4.3) in females as compared to SEE values of BD, i.e., (5.4) in males and (4.6) in females, so they concluded that among the facial parameters MFL is more reliable in estimating stature than BD. The data of the present study are similar to the above study, even though both MFL and BD showed good correlation but on regression analysis, MFL showed lower SEE value (1.35) in Indian students and (1.2) in African students than the SEE value of BD, i.e., (1.37) in Indians and (1.38) in Africans. Thus, from the above discussion, it can be concluded that among the four facial parameters MFL is more reliable in the estimation of stature in both Indian and African students. In the present study, the cephalic dimensions proved to be more reliable than facial dimensions for the estimation of stature in both Indian and African students as lower SEE was observed in cephalic dimensions. This observation shows that the calculation of regression formulae from cephalic measurements is more reliable and accurate than facial measurements. The findings were comparable to Krishan and Kumar and Krishan.[5],[22] In the abovementioned studies, cephalic dimensions proved to be more reliable than facial dimensions. Conclusion A significant correlation was found between cephalofacial measurements with stature. Out of the four cephalofacial parameters studied, cephalic parameters, i.e., MHL and HHC were found to be better correlated with stature than facial parameters, i.e., MFL and BD in both Indian and African students. Among the cephalofacial parameters, HHC has the highest degree of reliability and accuracy in the estimation of stature. In Indians as well as African students, MHL showed the highest correlation with stature. However, in Indians, the lowest correlation was seen with HHC whereas in Africans lowest correlation was with BD, therefore, it is essential to derive regression equations which are specific for people of a particular race or specific area and they are not be applicable to all population groups. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest. References


