Journal of Kerman University of Medical Sciences

Comparison of the Orbital Fossa Dimensions of Men and Women

Authors

Sayed Hassan Eftekhar-Vaghef 1
Parviz Raygan 2
Fatemeh Shikh-Bahaie 3
Zahra Abdi 3
Maryam Naderi 4
Masoud Shahsavaripoor 4

1 Associate Professor, Department of Anatomy, Afzalipour School of Medicine, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

2 Lecturer, Department of Anatomy, Afzalipour School of Medicine, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

3 Ph.D. Student, Department of Anatomy, Afzalipour School of Medicine, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

4 General Practitioner, Afzalipour School of Medicine, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

Abstract
Background & Aims: The orbital cavity is an important anatomic structure in the face. It is in close connection with the skull, paranasal sinuses, and the nose. Precise knowledge of the orbital cavity dimensions can be helpful in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases associated with the orbital cavity. Due to the lack of adequate research on orbital size in Iran and the city of Kerman, the aim of this study was to evaluate the proportions of the orbital fossa of women and men in Kerman. Methods: In the present study, a sliding caliper and a compassed caliper were used for the measurement of variables. The variables included orbital width, orbital height, and inter-orbital distance. The variables were measured in 2000 subjects in the age range of 20-30 years. Results: The mean orbital height and width in men was 35.8 and 41.6 mm, respectively. The mean orbital height and width in women were 23 mm and 33.1 mm, respectively. In addition, the mean inter-orbital distance in men and women was 31.9 mm and 24.1 mm, respectively. Conclusion: In this study, the statistical analysis of the variables showed no significant difference in orbital height, width and inter-orbital distance between men and women

Keywords

Anthropometry
Orbital fossa
Measurement
  1. Aziz SR, Marchena JM, Puran A. Anatomic characteristics of the infraorbital foramen: a cadaver study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000; 58(9): 992-6.
  2. Beer GM, Putz R, Mager K, Schumacher M, Keil W. Variations of the frontal exit of the supraorbital nerve: an anatomic study. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 102(2): 334-41.
  3. Weaver AA, Loftis KL, Tan JC, Duma SM, Stitzel JD. CT based three-dimensional measurement of orbit and eye anthropometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51(10): 4892-7.
  4. Wong TY, Klein BE, Klein R. The prevalence and 5-year incidence of ocular trauma. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2000; 107(12): 2196-202.
  5. Cillino S, Casuccio A, di Pace F, Pillitteri F, Cillino G. A five-year retrospective study of the epidemiological characteristics and visual outcomes of patients hospitalized for ocular trauma in a Mediterranean area. BMC Ophthalmology 2008; 8: 6.
  6. Etezad-Razavi M, Jalalifar S. Correlation between Interpupillary and Inner-Outer Intercanthal Distances in Individuals Younger than 20. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2008; 3(1): 16-22.
  7. Pivnick EK, Rivas ML, Tolley EA, Smith SD, Presbury GJ. Interpupillary distance in a normal black population. Clin Genet 1999; 55(3): 182-91.
  8. McGurk M, Whitehouse RW, Taylor PM, Swinson B. Orbital volume measured by a low-dose CT scanning technique. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1992; 21(2): 70-2.
  9. Nguyen PN, Sullivan P. Advances in the management of orbital fractures. Clin Plast Surg 1992; 19(1): 87-98.
  10. Brink JA. Technical aspects of helical (spiral) CT. Radiol Clin North Am 1995; 33(5): 825-41.
  11. Danko I, Haug RH. An experimental investigation of the safe distance for internal orbital dissection. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998; 56(6): 749-52.
  12. Pryor HB. Objective measurement of interpupillary distance. Pediatrics 1969; 44(6): 973-7.
  13. van den Bosch W, Leenders I, Mulder P. Topographic anatomy of the eyelids, and the effects of sex and age. Br J Ophthalmol 1999; 83(3): 347-52.
  14. Cohen MM, Richieri-Costa A, Guion-Almeida ML, Saavedra D. Hypertelorism: interorbital growth, measurements, and pathogenetic considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995; 24(6): 387-95.
Journal of Kerman University of Medical Sciences
Volume 22, Issue 5
2015
Pages 717-724

Home

Editorial Board

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Guide for Reviewers

Contact Us