Clinical and Forensic Relevance of Cranial Bone Thickness Using CT Scan in Relation to Age and Gender
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51985/JBUMDC2025576Keywords:
CT scan, Cranial bone thickness, Gender variation, Skull anatomy, sexual dimorphism, Forensic identificationAbstract
Objectives: The aim of the study is to assess cranial bone thickness in relation to age and gender using computed tomography (CT) scans, and to determine the clinical and forensic relevance of any observed variations.
Study design and setting: This was a retrospective cross sectional observational analysis carried out on 128 patients head CT at Radiology department of M. Islam Teaching Hospital, Gujranwala from 1st February, 2024 to 1st December, 2024. Methodology: Adults between the ages of 15 to 70 years were included. Data was collected by multi detector CT incisive 128 Philips using bone window. Sagittal view was selected for the measurements of unpaired frontal and occipital bones. Coronal view for the right and left paired parietal bones and axial view for the right and left paired temporal bones.
Independent samples t-tests and one-way ANOVA were used to assess sex- and age-related differences, respectively. A pvalue < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: Our study includes 128 participants, comprising 71 males and 57 females. The mean age of patients was 45.1 ± 18.7. The sex-based difference in cranial bone thickness was significant at upper and lower frontal, right anterior and posterior parietal, left middle and posterior parietal (p < 0.05). Based on age group the difference was statistically significant at the level of right anterior parietal only.
Conclusions: Cranial bone thickness varies significantly with gender and, to a limited extent, with age. These findings enhance our understanding of cranial anatomy relevant to surgical planning, trauma management, and forensic identification
References
1. Alexander SL, Rafaels K, Gunnarsson CA, Weerasooriya T.
Structural analysis of the frontal and parietal bones of the
human skull. Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical
materials. 2019;90:689-701 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.jmbbm.2018.10.035
2. Kulathunga NP, Vadysinghe AN, Sivasubramanium M,
Ekanayake KB, Wijesiriwardena Y. Variation of the human
skull bone thickness with the age, gender, and body stature:
An autopsy study of the Sri Lankan population. Medico-Legal
journal of Sri Lanka. 2022; 10(1): 1 – 6 DOI: http://doi.org/
10.4038/m1js1.v10i1.7451
3. Thulung S, Ranabhat K, Bishokarma S, Gongal DN.
Morphometric measurement of cranial vault thickness: a
tertiary hospital based study. JNMA: Journal of the Nepal
Medical Association. 2019;57(215):29 DOI: https://doi.org/
10.31729/jnma.3949
4. Goto S, Kataoka K, Isa M, Nakamori K, Yoshida M,
Murayama S, Arasaki A, Ishida H, Kimura R. Factors
associated with bone thickness: Comparison of the cranium
and humerus. PLoS One. 2023;18(3):e0283636 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283636
5. Lillie EM, Urban JE, Lynch SK, Weaver, and Stitzel JD.
Evaluation of skull cortical thickness changes with age and
sex from computed tomography scans. J Bone and Mineral
Research. 2016; 31(2): 299 – 307 DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1002/jbmr.2613
6. Vicini A, and Goswami T. Simulation of skull fracture due
to falls. Biomedical J of Scientific and Technical Research.
2019; 23(3): 17469 – 17473 DOI: https://corescholar.libraries.
wright.edu/bie/203
7. De Boer HHH, Van der Merwe AEL, and Soerdjbalie-Maikoe
VV. Human cranial vault thickness in a contemporary sample
of 1097 autopsy cases: relation to body weight, stature, age,
sex and ancestry. Int J Legal Medicine. 2016; 130(5): 1371
– 7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-016-1324-5
8. Saini V, Srivastava R, Rai RK, Shamal SN, Singh TB, and
Tripathi SK. An osteometric study of northern Indian
population for sexual dimorphism in craniofacial region. J
Forensic Sci. 2011; 56(3): 700 – 5 DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1556-4029.2011.01707.x
9. Nikita E, Michopoulou E. A quantitative approach for sex
estimation based on cranial morphology. American journal
of physical anthropology. 2018;165(3):507-17 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23376
10. Zaafrane M, Ben Khelil M, Naccache I, Ezzedine E, Savall
F, Telmon N, Mnif N, Hamdoun M. Sex determination of a
Tunisian population by CT scan analysis of the skull.
International Journal of Legal Medicine. 2018;132:853-62
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-017-1688-1
11. Domenech-Fernandez P, Yamane J, Domenech J, Barrios C,
Soldado-Carrera F, Knorr J, and Canavese F. Analysis of skull
bone thickness during growth: an anatomical guide for safe
pin placement in halo fixation. European Spine Journal. 2021;
30(2): 410 – 5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-
06367-x
12. Rowbotham SK, Mole CG, Tieppo D, Blaszkowska M,
Cordner SM, Blau S. Average thickness of the bones of the
human neurocranium: development of reference measurements
to assist with blunt force trauma interpretations. International
journal of legal medicine. 2023;137(1):195-213 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-022-02824-y
13. Eisová S, Rangel de Lázaro G, Píšová H, Pereira-Pedro S,
Bruner E. Parietal bone thickness and vascular diameters in
adult modern humans: a survey on cranial remains. The
Anatomical Record. 2016;299(7):888-96 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.23348
14. Khodarahmi I, Alizai H, Chalian M, Alaia EF, Burke CJ,
Slasky SE, and Wenokor C. Imaging spectrum of calvarial
abnormalities. Radio Graphics. 2021; 41(4): 1144 – 1163
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2021200198
15. Eksi MS, Guduk M, and Usseli MI. Frontal bone is thicker
in women and frontal sinus is large in men: a morphometric
analysis. J of Craniofacial Surgery. 2021; 32(5): 1683 – 4
DOI:10.1097/SCS.0000000000007256.
16. May H, Peled N, Dar G, Cohen H, Abbas J, Medlej B, and
Hershkovitz I. Hyperostosis frontalis interna: criteria for
sexing and aging a skeleton. Int J Legal Med. 2011; 125: 669
– 673 DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-010-0497-6
17. Semple BD, and Panagiotopoulou O. Cranial bone changes
induced by mild traumatic brain injuries: a neglected player
in concussion outcomes? Neurotrauma Reports. 2023; 4(1):
396 – 403 DOI: 10.1089/neur.2023.0025
18. Farzana F, Shah BA, Shahdad S, Zia ul Haq P, Sarmast A,
and Ali Z. Computed tomographic scanning measurement of
skull bone thickness: a single center study. Int J Research in
Medical Sciences. 2018; 6(3): 913 – 6 DOI: https://doi.org/
10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20180614
19. Anzelmo M, Ventrice F, Barbeito-Andres J, Pucciarelli HM,
and Sardi ML. Ontogenetic changes in cranial vault thickness
in a modern sample of Homo sapiens. American J of Human
Biology. 2015; 27: 475 – 485 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/
ajhb.22673
20. Lynnerup N, Astrup JG, and Sejrsen B. Thickness of the
human cranial diploe in relation to age, sex and general body
build. Head and Face Medicine. 2005; 1(1): 1 –7 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-1-13
21. Ichalakaranji R, Maste P, Mulimani N, Ramini J, Shenoy R.
Computerized tomography assessment of calvarial wall
thickness in different gender and age in neurosurgical practiceA single centre study. IP Indian Journal of Neurosciences.
2019; 5(2): 73-77 DOI: http://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijn.2019.008
22. Lynnerup N. Cranial thickness in relation to age, sex and
general body build in a Danish forensic sample. Forensic
science international. 2001; 117: 45-51 DOI:https://doi.org/10.1
016/S0379-0738(00)00447-3
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Journal of Bahria University Medical & Dental College is an open access journal and is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0. which permits unrestricted non commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
