close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

Comparative craniofacial variation in Navajo Indians and North American Caucasians.

код для вставкиСкачать
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 76:145-154 (1988)
Comparative Craniofacial Variation in Navajo Indians and
North American Caucasians
GERALD S. PHIPPS, REBECCA Z. GERMAN, AND RICHARD J. SMITH
Department of Orthodontics (G.S.P,R.Z.G.,R .J.S.) and Department of
Biomedical Science (R.Z.G.), Washington University School of Dental
Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 63110
KEY WORDS
Cephalometrics, Variability, Craniofacial morphology
ABSTRACT
Landmarks digitized from lateral cephalometric radiographs
of 107 Navajo Indians between 10 and 12 years of age were analyzed to determine coefficients of variation or standard deviations for 38 cephalometric measurements. These values were compared with the same measures of variation
for identical measurements on North American whites derived from the Michigan and Philadelphia Growth Studies. For the majority of variables, there were
no differences between groups.Variation for the genetically and environmentally
isolated Navajo Indians was the same as that of the highly diverse Caucasian
samples. However, measurements of upper, lower, and total anterior facial height
(N-ANS,ANS-Me, and N-Me, respectively) indicate that these features are substantially less variable in Navajo Indians relative to the Michigan and Philadelphia populations.
Phenotypic variation of anthropometric
traits within and among isolated human
populations has been the subject of considerable investigation. The results of several
studies suggest that there is a slight reduction in variability within isolated groups when
compared with industrialized, cosmopolitan
populations (Hunt, 1966; Neel et al., 1964;
Schull and Neel, 1965; Smith and Bailit,
1977b; Stern, 1973). Others, however, have
reported higher variation within isolated
populations. The Hutterites, a highly isolated and inbred religious sect distributed in
Anabaptist colonies in the western United
States and Canada, were examined by Howells (1966). He concluded that this group did
not exhibit reduced variability in anthropometric traits. On the contrary, intrafamily
variation was found to be greater than interfamily variation, demonstrating the
maintenance of variability in the smallest of
population units. Recent studies (Harper,
1980; Szathmary, 1983, 1984) examining
variation in gene frequencies for Native
Americans have demonstrated a consistent
high degree of variation within, rather than
between, groups.
Investigators finding reduced variation in
isolated populations generally invoke de-
0 1988 ALAN R.LISS, INC.
creased genetic variation due to homozygosity and decreased environmental variation
as the mechanisms for the variance reduction. Those studies reporting increased or
equivalent variation in isolated populations
generally explain these findings on the basis
of decreased heterotic buffering. That is,
within any population, increasing homozygosity may reduce the developmental homeostasis seen in heterozygotes, resulting in
greater phenotypic variance (Lerner, 1954).
For craniofacial anthropometric traits,
comparison of variability in urban and isolated populations is complicated by an additional consideration. Westernization seems
to be accompanied by an increase in the
prevalence of malocclusion (Bjork and Helm,
1969; Corruccini et al., 1983; Hunt, 1961;
Lombardi and Bailit, 1972). A dietary basis
for this observation, related either to decreased dental attrition (Begg, 1954; Lombardi, 1982) or to decreased functional
stimulation of jaw growth (Corruccini, 19841,
is more likely than a genetic admixture effect (Chung et al., 1971; Smith and Bailit,
1977a). In either case, an increase in the
Received September 21, 1987; accepted January 18, 1988
146
G.S. PHIPPS ET AL.
variability of facial skeletal dimensions is
likely to accompany this increase in malocclusion (Mann, 1979).
Although skull metrics have been exhaustively studied, both radiographically in living subjects and directly on skeletal
specimens, relatively few workers have directly considered the question of comparative variability. In this study, we compare a
population of Navajo native Americans to
two urban populations specifically to examine changes in variability among populations, age groups, and between sexes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sample selection
The Navajo Indians are related to the
Athapascan-speaking groups currently located on the Northwest Pacific Coast of Canada and the United States. About 1,000 years
ago, the Navajo migrated to the southwest
United States (Troup et al., 1982). Currently, 200,000 Navajo occupy a 30,000square-milereservation in northeast Arizona,
northwest New Mexico, and small portions
of Utah and Colorado (Bureau of Census,
1984).
The Navajo population is well-suited for
genetic studies due to a restricted gene pool,
resulting from consanguinity; founders effect; and limited genetic admixture (Cole,
1964; Troup et al., 1982). The degree of isolation this tribe has maintained has limited
genetic mixture with other population groups
and has aided in keeping the Navajo racial
strain relatively pure. By examining gene
frequencies, Williams et al. (1985) demonstrated an average Caucasoid admixture for
Southern Athapascan groups, including Navajo, of about 4%. As described by Spuhler
and Kluckhohn (19531, “the Navajo do not
concentrate their population into villages.
Rather, the community is composed of biological families (or more usually such families combined into extended families with
matrilineal descent and matrilocal residence) widely spaced in small houses or hogans.” The higher level of consanguinity seen
in the Navajo, relative to the general population, is most likely a result of geographic
and cultural isolation and not due to incest
(Kluckhohn and Leighton, 1947; Downs,
1972).
Population sample
Pretreatment lateral cephalometric radiographs and study models of 107 Navajo In-
dians (Table 1)were obtained from the Navajo
Orthodontic Program at Shiprock, New
Mexico. The following criteria were used in
the selection of subjects for this study:
1. Navajo Indians of 4 4 bloodline (no known
admixture) as determined from birth certificates and other documentation presented to
the Public Health Service.
2. Residence of record and place of birth
located on the Navajo Reservation.
3. Age 10 to 12 years, as determined from
documentation accompanying the cephalometric radiographs and study models.
4. No history of previous orthodontic treatment.
5. No significant medical history.
Although every attempt was made to eliminate bias in sample selection, it should be
understood that the records examined in this
study may not be entirely representative of
the Navajo population. Rather, they represent the records of subjects with a malocclusion significant enough to have justified the
taking of orthodontic records. However, for
any result showing decreased variability in
Navajos, this sample selection is conservative. Since all subjects exhibited some treatable degree of malocclusion, we would expect
variability in this sample to be higher than
in a totally random Navajo sample that included individuals with ideal occlusion. Even
when groups of subjects with one specific
type of malocclusion have been compared to
normal occlusion groups, the malocclusion
group has been found t o have a generalized
increased variation in craniofacial morphology (Cangialosi, 1984; Isaacson et al., 1971;
Mann, 1979).
Data collection and measurement reliability
Cephalometric radiographs were taken
with a Siemens Orthopantamograph a t a
distance of 60 in and subject-film distance
of 15 cm. All radiographs were evaluated
identically. Landmark coordinates were recorded using a Numonics 2400 Digitizer, IBMAT computer, and the Washington University ORTHODIG program (Dunford-Shore
and German, 1986), and then converted directly into angular and linear measurements related to the Bjork (1947), Downs
(1948), and Steiner (1960) analyses.
Repeated measurements on a series of ten
radiographs resulted in no significant error
(P < .005) in measurement technique. The
average error in measurement technique was
147
CRANIOFACIAL VARIABILITY IN NAVAJO INDIANS
TABLE 1. Sampb sizes by age and sex
Age (yr)
Navajo
Michigan
Philadelphia
10
Male
11
12
10
Female
11
12
10
46
45
10
43
54
12
44
59
34
35
61
24
30
50
17
27
69
0.25 mm with the largest average error being
0.63 mm for location of the apex of the maxillary central incisor.
Choice of variables and statistics
Measurements provided by the three cephalometric analyses generated 85 variables for comparison with other groups. The
Michigan Growth Study (Riolo et al., 1974)
and Philadelphia Growth Study (Saksena et
al., 1987) were chosen for comparison because they are based on large, random samples and they report both means and standard
deviations of measurements by age and sex.
Of the original 85 variables, 32 coincided with
the Michigan Growth Study and 19 coincided with the Philadelphia Growth Study
(Table 2). The data for each of these variables was statistically analyzed using the
SYSTAT package (Wilkinson, 1986) on an
IBM-AT computer. The definitions of all cephalometric landmarks used in Table 2 are
given in Riolo et al. (1974) and Saksena et
al. (1987) and are illustrated in Figure 1.
A variety of statistical methods have been
used to compare variability within and among
groups. Comparison of standard deviations
has proven useful in some previous studies
(Howells, 1966; Hunt, 1966). However, the
standard deviation is of limited value in
comparisons of variability for large dimensions since it has a positive correlation with
the mean (Haugen, 1977, 1978a,b, 1979,
1980). Nee1 et al. (1964) utilized the coeEcient of variation (the standard deviation divided by the mean) to compare Xavante
Indians with residents of Hamburg, Germany. The coefficient of variation is best employed when the magnitude of the means are
large enough to require a relative expression
of variability in percent of the mean (Sokal
and Braumann, 1980). The evaluation of
coefficients of variation can be both descriptive (Yablokov, 1974) and inferential (Galler
and Gould, 1979). In this study, we will first
qualitatively assess differences in variation
between samples for each variable. Then, using a complete linear model with three
Fig. 1. Landmarks used to derive the angular and linear
measurements listed in Table 1. Symbols for identified
points are as follows: nasion (N), sella (S), porion (Po),
articulare (Ar), orbitale (Or), anterior nasal spine (ANSI,
posterior nasal spine (PNS), subspinale (A), incision superius (Is),incision inferius (Ii), infradentale(Id),occlusal
plane (OP), supramentale (BD), pogonion (Pg), menton
(Me), and gonion (Go).
factors-age, sex, and sample-we will test
the hypothesis that the coefficient of variation (or the amount of variation) was equal
in each treatment.
For some measurements, the standard deviation is a more appropriate measure of
variability than the coefficient of variation.
These variables include angular and linear
measurements that have positive and negative values. The resulting mean values fluctuating around zero markedly inflate
coefficients of variation.
RESULTS
The comparative statistics for the selected
variables are listed in Table 2. The six columns in each table for each population represent measurements of Variability for the
AT-S
Go-pg
Angular skeletal
measurements
SNA
SNB
S-N-ANS
SN-Pg
G0-h
Linear skeletal
measurements (mm)
Ar-N
N-S
&-Id
Ar-B
Ar-PNS
ANS-PNS
Ar-Ii
N-ANS
ANS-Is
N-Me
ANS-Me
Variable
4.2
6.5
4.1
3.7
7.5
7.1
4.6
5.8
10.0
3.9
6.5
7.5
6.9
3.4
3.9
2.7
5.0
3.3
4.7
4.1
3.9
4.3
6.9
3.9
4.1
3.3
9.6
4.2
6.2
9.5
12.1
4.7
4.2
4.4
4.8
4.3
10
M
11
3.9
4.1
3.5
3.5
9.4
7.5
4.0
4.9
7.3
3.4
4.8
6.8
8.3
4.0
4.7
4.1
4.7
3.8
3.8
4.6
2.6
5.1
10
4.4
3.9
3.1
3.8
8.0
5.4
2.1
6.1
7.7
3.9
5.4
10.6
8.9
3.0
12
Navajo
3.8
3.3
3.8
3.1
5.2
6.2
4.9
5.9
4.6
3.6
4.7
3.4
-
I
-
3.9
4.2
3.4
3.2
6.7
4.8
3.8
5.9
7.4
4.8
7.1
10
4.3
5.5
5.9
5.8
10.3
6.5
6.1
4.2
8.1
3.9
6.4
8.9
11.8
6.0
12
4.4
4.6
3.8
3.8
9.4
6.5
5.3
3.4
8.4
3.8
5.5
8.0
6.6
7.0
F
11
3.7
3.4
3.7
5.0
3.8
3.7
4.0
3.8
6.7
4.3
4.6
6.3
6.5
4.9
6.8
-
11
M
4.1
3.5
4.3
4.5
3.7
4.2
4.2
3.9
6.4
5.5
4.9
6.6
7.1
5.1
7.2
-
12
4.7
5.0
5.1
5.8
4.6
4.6
4.4
4.5
-
-
-
4.9
4.0
4.4
4.7
6.6
7.4
4.7
6.3
10.1
5.5
7.0
-
11
F
4.7
3.8
5.1
5.0
7.6
5.8
5.7
7.1
10.3
5.8
7.5
10
Michigan
4.4
4.4
4.3
5.0
4.4
4.0
4.6
4.4
6.9
5.9
5.0
6.9
9.7
5.1
5.7
-
12
4.0
4.0
4.2
3.9
4.4
7.1
6.8
9.9
5.2
-
7.1
5.5
-
4.0
3.9
10
4.0
4.4
3.8
4.3
6.3
5.9
4.2
6.3
6.7
9.9
5.5
-
4.3
4.4
-
11
M
TABLE 2. Variability (coefficientsof uariatian or standard deuiatwns) for all measurements separately by age, sex, and population
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.1
4.2
6.6
6.9
9.0
4.6
-
7.1
-
4.2
4.1
-
12
4.1
3.9
4.4
4.3
4.8
6.0
8.4
9.8
4.6
-
6.3
5.8
-
4.7
3.2
10
Philadelphia
F
4.6
4.8
4.9
5.2
5.9
7.2
8.2
9.3
6.3
7.1
6.9
-
-
I
4.8
4.3
11
4.1
4.1
4.3
4.3
4.9
6.9
7.7
7.4
5.7
-
4.4
3.8
6.7
-
12
Go-MdSN
ANS-PNsIGo-Me
ArWGo-Me
N-S-Ar
SAr-Go
Po-Or/N-Pg
Angular skeletal
measurements
(standard deviations)
ANB
N-A-Pg
OP/SN
Po-Or/Go-Me
Po-OdOP
A-B/N-Pg
Dental
measyements
At01
1 to &Me
Dental
measurements
btandard deviations)
1toOP
IS to A-Pg (m)
ISto N-A (m)
1to N-A
- to N-B (mm)
1to N-B
17.0
17.0
1.7
2.9
4.9
5.8
2.7
6.4
3.8
6.6
5.9
4.0
9.2
5.8
7.5
3.5
2.4
6.6
1.9
7.3
15.3
26.9
4.3
5.6
4.3
3.0
3.1
7.1
2.9
4.3
3.1
3.8
8.7
8.4
7.8
4.1
2.8
5.8
1.7
8.2
10.6
17.8
3.0
4.4
4.4
5.2
2.7
6.1
2.9
6.3
4.9
3.7
4.7
4.4
4.3
3.1
2.9
8.4
1.2
5.5
6.3
2.3
1.9
5.3
1.4
5.5
6.5
6.5
2.8
5.8
2.9
3.6
2.8
4.2
9.8
11.9
3.2
3.7
3.6
3.5
6.7
3.1
2.7
5.6
1.4
6.2
8.9
6.0
2.3
5.3
3.3
5.5
4.7
3.0
11.8
15.4
6.1
3.0
3.9
5.3
4.6
2.0
3.5
8.1
1.4
5.6
7.1
7.0
2.9
6.2
4.2
6.5
5.0
4.3
14.1
14.1
3.9
5.8
5.0
6.1
5.5
2.6
2.2
5.3
2.3
5.6
6.9
5.3
2.0
4.9
3.2
5.0
3.7
2.7
4.1
-
13.5
16.5
5.6
2.5
2.3
6.0
2.5
6.0
7.3
5.6
1.9
4.5
3.8
4.7
3.6
2.6
4.2
-
13.5
16.3
-
6.4
2.6
2.7
5.7
2.6
6.4
7.6
6.2
2.1
4.8
3.7
5.5
4.8
2.7
14.5
17.9
4.6
6.9
2.4
2.2
7.0
2.1
6.2
7.1
7.2
6.4
2.7
2.4
6.1
2.3
6.0
7.1
6.4
2.2
4.5
3.6
4.4
2.9
3.2
3.2
4.2
2.7
5.7
3.5
4.2
3.7
3.7
-
-
16.1
18.9
-
_
10.6
17.6
6.9
3.0
2.8
6.5
2.5
6.7
8.0
6.9
2.4
5.5
3.3
5.2
3.0
3.6
15.5
19.8
3.5
150
G.S. PHIPPS ET AL.
TABLE 3. Analysis of variance of complete model
SOUm
Age
Sex
Sample
Age
sex
*
Mean-square
F-ratio
P
7.902
10.743
13.244
2
1
2
3.951
10.743
6.622
0.320
0.870
0.536
0.726
0.352
0.586
3.677
2
1.838
0.149
0.862
Sum-of-squares
DF
Age *
Sample
sex *
Sample
6.368
4
1.592
0.129
0.972
11.896
2
5.948
0.482
0.618
Age *
sex *
Sample
Error
19.867
4,150.431
4
336
4.967
12.352
0.402
0.807
Tests for interaction effects between variables are indicated by asterisks.
two sexes a t the ages 10,11, and 12. In most
instances, the value listed is the coefficient
of variation. Where standard deviations are
reported instead, they are clearly indicated.
For the majority of variables, no apparent
patterns were evident. For most variables,
the group with the lowest or highest coefficient of variation was not consistent with
respect to age, sex, or sample. In most cases,
the range of the coefficients of variation
within a variable was not remarkable.
For a few variables, specific patterns
emerged. Ar-PNS (articulare to posterior nasal spine), which is sometimes used as an
approximate measure of the upper pharyngeal space, was more variable a t all ages and
in both sexes for the Navajo group when
compared to the Michigan group. The coefficient of variation of 11-NB (lower incisor to
the nasion-B point line), a sagittal measure
of the position of the mandibular central incisor in relation to the anterior limits of the
facial skeleton, was always lower in Navajos
than in the Michigan sample, for both sexes
at all ages. The coefficients of variation for
upper, lower, and total anterior facial heights
(N-ANS, ANS-Me, and N-Me, respectively)
are suggestive of substantially reduced variation in Navajo Indians, relative to both the
Michigan and Philadelphia samples. Of the
36 possible pairwise comparisons for these
variables, there were only two exceptions to
this pattern. Eleven-year-old males from
Philadelphia and twelve-year-old females
from Michigan had a lower coefficient of
variation than their age- and sex matched
Navajo counterparts for one measurement
each.
Table 3 contains the results of a complete
unbalanced analysis of variance of all factors
and interactions. Only measurements from
Table 2 expressed as coeftkients of variation
were included in this analysis, producing an
N of 354. The squared multiple R for the
complete model was 0.018. No main factor
or interaction even remotely approached significance. We thus accept the null hypothesis of equal coefficients of variation among
treatments. Across all variables there is no
difference in variation among samples, age
groups, and sexes.
DISCUSSION
There have been numerous studies of
craniometric traits, generally related to one
of two broad categories. Many studies have
reported and compared sample means derived from cephalometric radiographs of living subjects (Altemus, 1968; Broadbent et
al., 1975; Brown and Barrett, 1964; Craven,
1958; Gresham, 1968; Packard, 1967; Richardson, 1980). The other common category
of study design has looked at metric traits
in the skulls of non-living subjects (Abdushelishvili, 1984; Brown, 1973; Cederquist
and Dahlberg, 1979; Haugen, l977,1978a,b,
1979,1980; Kanda, 1964; Kanda et al., 1968;
Key and Jantz, 1981; Tattersall, 1968).These
studies provide extensive data on differences
in craniofacial form, but not on differences
in form variation.
Previous studies comparing phenotypic
variation of anthropometric traits in isolated populations to industrialized groups
suggest that there is only a slight reduction
in variability within the isolated group (Hunt,
1966;Neel et al., 1964; Schull and Neel, 1965;
Smith and Bailit, 1977b). Neel et al. (1964)
evaluated the variability of an assortment
of traits in Xavante Indians, described as a
“small, quite endogamous group with a relatively high coefficient of inbreeding where
CRANIOFACIAL VARIABILITY IN NAVAJO INDIANS
polygamy is common and sterility is rare.”
The intragroup variation for the Xavante was
only slightly less than that of the cosmopolitan population of Hamburg, Germany. Smith
and Bailit (1977b), comparing the variation
of occlusion and dental arches among an isolated group of Melanesians with that of industrialized groups, demonstrated only a
slight reduction in variance between the
groups. They concluded: “the maintenance
of a large amount of phenotypic variation
when there are reasons to expect a decrease
in both environmental and genetic variance
cannot be satisfactorily explained.” The results of the present study indicate that there
are no differences in overall facial variability
between young adolescent Navajo Indians
and highly diverse Caucasian samples from
Philadelphia and Michigan.
The discussion of craniofacial trait variability between populations has received
limited attention in the literature. When between population comparisons were made,
it was generally for the purpose of distinguishing population groups from one another on the basis of dimension and form,
rather than observed levels of variation (Altemus, 1960; Howells, 1972; Kowalski et al.,
1975). A series of studies by Koski (1973)
and associates (Vinkka and Koski, 1975;
Vinkka et al., 1975) examined variability in
the angular relationship between specific
craniofacial traits, represented as anatomic
lines traced on lateral cephalograms. Although their method is interesting and informative, it is also unique, and does not
allow for comparison to this or most other
studies.
A comprehensive evaluation of craniofacia1 variability has been presented by Haugen (1977,1978a,b, 1979,1980) on the upper
and middle face of medieval skulls from Oslo.
Haugen found facial height variables to be
in the “medium range of variability.” Using
the standard deviation for statistical comparisons, Haugen demonstrated greater variability in males than in females. However,
comparisons based on the coefficient of variation showed no sex differences. Reinbold et
al. (1985), in an investigation of cranial dimensions in relation to differences in climate, found increased susceptibility of males
to short-term environmental variation.
However, there was no indication of a significant sex differences in variability within
groups for any of the populations examined
in the present study.
151
The most interesting exception to the general finding of similar variation within groups
is the distinctly reduced variability in measurements of anterior facial height (N-Me),
upper anterior facial height (N-ANS), and
lower anterior facial height (ANS-Me) for
Navajo Indians. As reviewed by Woodside
and Linder-Aronson (19791, the correlations
between these three measurements within
populations are generally low. The consistent results for the three measurements can
therefore be considered to strengthen the observation that there is a real difference in
the variability of anterior vertical facial
height among the groups included in this
study. The obvious question to be considered
is whether this reflects a biological reduction
in variability of anterior facial height of the
Navajo or an increase in variability of the
Michigan and Philadelphia samples, and
whether this difference might be due to genetic and/or environmental influences. This
is a classic question which has been the topic
of extensive investigation (Harris et al., 1973;
Hunter et al., 1970; Kraus et al., 1959; Lundstrom, 1955; Watnick, 1972). The general
tendency in the literature has been to attribute greater influence to genetic factors
than to environmental ones.
Nevertheless, particularly for anterior facial height, environmental factors should not
be ruled out. Consistency of diet, respiratory
allergies, climate, and head posture, among
other variables, have an important effect on
craniofacial dimension and form (Beals, 1972;
Corruccini et al., 1983; Corruccini, 1984;
Hunt, 1961; Nakata et al., 1974; Shapiro,
1969; Shea, 1977; Tarvonen and Koski, 1987;
Waugh, 1937). The issue of diet consistency
is perhaps the most interesting for the present sample. Hunt (1961) suggested that the
decreased facial height seen in skulls of Australian Aborigines and early unacculturated
Europeans might be related to a combination of attrition and increased forces of mastication, limiting vertical growth of the upper
face. Corruccini et al. (1983) studied the dental casts of 340 Pima Indians between the
ages of 11-30 and 31-50 and demonstrated
less variability in occlusion for the older Pima,
raised on a less refined diet. In a series of
studies of laboratory animals given a soft
diet, Corruccini and Beecher (1982, 1984)
and Beecher et al. (1983) identified both dental and skeletal effects strongly suggestive
of a positive association between mastication and jaw development.
152
G.S. PHIPPS ET AL.
One of us (G.S.P.) spent 14 months working with and observing this Navajo population prior to the onset of this study.
Based on these personal observations, any
hypothesis of dietary differences between
10-12-year-old Navajo children and their
Michigan and Philadelphia counterparts are
considered unlikely. Living conditions on the
Navajo Reservation have been substantially
modernized over the last decade. Automobiles, paved roads, supermarkets, and fastfood restaurants provide a notable influence
in the modern Navajo society and resulting
diet. Children presently in a 10-12-year age
group do not subsist on a traditional Navajo
diet. Thus we rule out the explanation that
observed differences in facial variability are
due to population differences in diet. It is
more likely that anterior facial height is less
variable in Navajo Indians due to decreased
genetic variation. Several other studies have
confirmed that heritability and familial resemblances are greater for anterior vertical
facial dimensions than for most other metric
features of the skull (Byard et al., 1985;
Lundstrom and McWilliams, 1987; Nakata
et al., 1974; Szopa, 1976).
Broadbent, BH, Sr, Broadbent, BH, Jr, and Golden, WH
(1975)Bolton Standards of Dentofacial Developmental
Growth. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby Company.
Brown, T (1973)Morphology of the Australian Skull. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Brown, T, and Barrett, MJ (1964)A roentgenographic
study of facial morphology in a tribe of Central Australian Aborigines. Am. J . Phys. Anthropol. 22:33-42.
B m a u of Census (1984)America.n I n d i a n h a s and Alaska
Native Villages: 1980.Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Commerce.
Byard, PJ, Poosha, DVR, Satyanarayana, M, and Rao, DC
(1985)Family resemblance for components of craniofacial size and shape. J. Craniofac. Genet. Dev. Biol.
5229-238.
Cangialosi, TJ (1984)Skeletal morphologicfeatures of anterior open bite. Am. J . Orthod. 85:28-36.
Cederquist, R, and Dahlberg, AA (1979)Age changes in
facial morphologyof a n Alaskan Eskimo population. Int.
J. Skel. Res. 639-68.
Chung, CS, Niswander, JD, Runck, DW, Bilben, SE, and
Kau, MCW (1971)Genetic and epidemiologicstudies of
oral characteristics in Hawaii‘s schoolchildren. 11. Malocclusion. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 23:471-495.
Cole, FtL (1964)A Cephalometric Evaluation ofthe Navajo
Indian. M.S. Thesis, h m a Linda University.
Corruccini, Rs (1984)An epidemiological transition in
dental occlusion in world populations. Am. J. Orthod.
86:419-426.
Corruccini, RS, and Beecher, RM (1982)Occlusal variation
related to soft diet in a nonhuman primate. Science
218:74-76.
Corruccini, RS, and Beecher, EW (1984) Occlusofacial
morphological integration lowered in baboons raised on
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a soft diet. J. Craniofac. Genet. Dev. Biol. 4:135-142.
The authors wish to thank Dr. C. Michael Corruccini, RS, Potter, RHY, and Dahlberg, AA (1983)
Changing occlusal variation in F‘ima Indians. Am. J.
Beck and his staff for their assistance in
Phys. Anthropol. 62:317-324.
gathering patient records for this study, Brian Craven, AH (1958)A radiographic cephalometric study of
Dunford-Shore for his assistance with comthe Central Australian Aboriginal. Angle Orthod.
2812-35.
puter operations, and Rita Kuehler for typing several drafts of this manuscript. This Downs, JF (1972)The Navajo. New York Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc.
work was supported by NIH BRSG funds to Downs,
WB (1948)Variations in facial relationship, their
R.Z. German and R.J. Smith.
significance in treatment and prognosis. Am. J. Orthod.
34:812-840.
LITERATURE CITED
Dunford-Shore, B, and German, Rz (1986)ORTHODIG.
Abdushelishvili, MG (1984)Craniometry of the Caucasus
St. Louis, Missouri: Washington University School of
in the feudal period. Cum. Anthropol. 25505-510.
Dental Medicine.
Altemus, LA (1960)A comparison of cephalofacial rela- Galler, L, and Gould, SJ (1979)The morphology of a “hytionships. Angle Orthod. 30:223-240.
brid zone” in Cerion: Variation, clines, and an ontogenetic relationship between two “species” in Cuba.
Altemus, LA (1968)Cephalofacial relationships. Angle OrEvolution 33:714-727.
thod. 38175-184.
Be&, KI (1972)Head form and climatic stress. Am. J. Gresham, H (1968)Cranio-facial and dento-facial comPhys. Anthropol. 37%-92.
ponents of children in England compared with a similar
group of children in New Zealand and in Australia. Dent.
Beecher, RM, Corruccini, RS, and Freeman, M (1983)
h a d . Dent. Rec. 18:315-320.
Craniofacial correlates of dietary consistency in a nonhuman primate. J. Craniofac. Genet. Dev. Biol. 3:193- Harper, AB (1980)Origins and divergence of Aleuts, Es202.
kimos and American Indians. Ann. Hum. Biol. 7547554.
Begg, PR (1954)Stone age man’s dentition. Am. J. Orthod.
40298-312,373-383,462-475,517-531.
Harris, JE,Kowalski, CJ, and Watnick, SS (1973)Genetic
factors in the shape of the craniofacial complex. Angle
Bjork, A (1947)The Face in F’rofde: An Anthropological
Orthod. 43:107-111.
X-Ray Investigation on Swedish Children and Conscripts. Lund, Berlinksa.
Haugen, LK (1977)The human upper and middle face. A
morphological investigation in a Norwegian medieval
Bjork, A, and Helm, S (1969)Need for orthodontic treatpopulation. I. Introduction. Materials and methods.
ment as reflected in the prevalence of malocclusion in
Method error. Acta Morphol. Neerl. Scand. 15:241-268.
various ethnic groups. Acta Sociomed. Scand. (Sartryck
Ur) ISuppI.ll:209-214.
Haugen, LK (1978a)The human upper and middle face.
CRANIOFACIALVARIABIIJ T Y IN NAVAJO INDIANS
A morphologicalinvestigation in a Norwegian medieval
population. 11. Statistical distribution. Acta Morphol.
Neerl. Scand. 1689-104.
Haugen, LK (197813) The human upper and middle face.
A morphologicalinvestigation in a Norwegian medieval
population. 111. Variability. Acta Morphol. Neerl. Scand.
16305-326.
Haugen, LK (1979) The human upper and middle face. A
morphological investigation in a Norwegian medieval
population. IV.Sexual difference. Acta Morphol. Neerl.
Scand. 17:145-165.
Hauken, LK (1980) The human upper and middle face. A
morphological investigation in a Norwegian medieval
population. V. Covariation. Acta Morphol. Neerl. Scand.
18:93-112.
Howells, WW (1966) Variability in family lines vs. population variability. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 134:624-631.
Howells, WW (1972) Analysis of patterns of variation in
crania of recent man. In R. Tuttle (ed): The Functional
and Evolutionary Biology of Primates. Chicago: AldineAtherton, Inc.
Hunt, EE (1961) Malocclusion and civilization.Am. J. Orthod. 47406-422.
Hunt, EE (1966) Metrical variability and population size
in Micronesians. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 134:632-638.
Hunter, SW, Balbach, DR, and Lamphiear, DE (1970)The
heritability of attained growth in the human face. Am.
J. Orthod. 58:128-134.
Isaacson, JR,Isaacson, RJ, Speidel, TM, and Worms, FW
(1971) Extreme variation in vertical facial growth and
associated variation in skeletal and dental relations.
Angle Orthod. 41:219-229.
Kanda, S (1964)On the excavated skulls from the Hosoura
shellmound in Iwate Prefecture. Med. J. Osaka Univ.
15:123-135.
Kanda, S, Yamasaki, M, and Kurisu, K (1968) Craniometry of the Tohoku Japanese. Med. J . Osaka Univ.
18:293-314.
Key, P, and Jantz, RL (1981) A multivariate analysis of
temporal change in Arikara craniometrics: A methodological approach. Am. J . Phys. Anthropol. 55247-259.
Kluckhohn, C, and Leighton, D (1947)The Navajo. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Koski, K (1973) Variability of the craniofacial skeleton.
Am. J. Orthod. 64:188-196.
Kowalski, CJ,Nasjleti, CE, and Walker, GF (1975) Dentofacial variations within and between four groups of
adult American males. Angle Orthod. 45146-151.
Kraus, BS, Wise, WJ, and Frei, H (1959) Heredity and
the craniofacial complex. Am. J. Orthod. 45172-191.
Lerner, IM (1954) Genetic Homeostasis. London: Oliver
& Boyd.
Lombardi, AV (1982)The adaptive value of dental crowding: A consideration of the biologic basis of malocclusion.
Am. J . Orthod. 81:38-42.
Lombardi, AV, and Bailit, HL (1972) Malocclusion in the
Kwaio, a Melanesian group on Malaita, Solomon Islands. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 36283-294.
Lundstrom, A (1955) The significance of genetic and nongenetic factors in the profile of the facial skeleton. Am.
J . Orthod. 41 :910-916.
Lundstrom, A, and McWilliam, JS (1987) A comparison
of vertical and horizontal cephalometric variables with
regard to heritability. Em. J. Orthod. 9104-108.
Mann, AW I11 (1979) Craniofacial morphological variations in a n adult sample: A radiographic cephalometric
study. Br. J. Orthod. 695-99.
Nakata, M, Yu, PL, and Nance, WE (1974) Multivariate
153
analysis of craniofacial measurements in twin and family data. Am. J . Phys. Anthropol. 41 :423-430.
Neel, JV,Salzano, FM, Junqueira, PC, Keiter, F, and Maybury-Lewis, D (1964) Studies on the Xavante Indians
of the Brazilian Mato Grosso. Am. J. Hum. Genet.
1652-140.
Packard, RC (1967) A Cephalometric Study of the Face
and Dentition of Several Contemporary Western United
States and Alaskan Eskimo Groups. M.S. Thesis, Loma
Linda University.
Reinbold,MB, McFarland, JR,and Beals, KL (1985)Variation of human cranial module. Curr. Anthropol.
26514-516.
Richardson, ER (1980) Racial differences in dimensional
traits of the human face. Angle Orthod. 50:301-311.
Riolo, ML, Moyers, RE, McNamara, JA, and Hunter, WS
(1974) An Atlas for Craniofacial Growth. Ann Arbor:
Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan.
Saksena, SS, Walker, GF, Bixler, D, and Yu, P (1987) A
Clinical Atlas of Roentgenocephalometry in Norma Lateralis. New York Alan R. Liss, Inc.
&hull, WJ, and Neel, JV (1965)The Effects of Inbreeding
on Japanese Children. New York: Harper and Row.
Shapiro, BL (1969) A twin study of palatal dimensions
partitioning genetic and environmental contributions to
variability. Angle Orthod. 39:139-151.
Shea, BT (1977)Eskimo craniofacialmorphology, cold stress
and the maxillary sinus. Am. J . Phys. Anthropol.
47289-300.
Smith, RJ, and Bailit, HL (1977a)Problems and methods
in research on the genetics of dental occlusion. Angle
Orthod. 4765-77.
Smith, RJ, and Bailit, HL (1977b) Variation in dental
occlusion and arches among Melanesians of Bougainville Island, Papua New Guinea. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 47195-207.
SOW, RR, and Braumann, CA (1980) Significance tests
for coefficients of variation and variability profiles. Syst.
Z00l. 29:50-66.
Spuhler, JN,and Kluckhohn,C (1953) Inbreeding coefficients of the Ramah Navajo population. Hum. Biol.
25~295-317.
Steiner, CC (1960) The use of cephalometrics as an aid to
planning and assessing orthodontic treatment. Am. J.
Orthod. 46721-735.
Stern, C (1973) principles of Human Genetics. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Szathmary, EJJX (1983) Dogrib Indians of the Northwest
Territories, Canada: Genetic diversity and genetic relationship among subarctic Indians. Ann. Hum. Biol.
10~147-162.
Szathmary, EJE (1984)Peopling of North America: Clues
from genetic studies. Acta Anthropogenet. 879-109.
Szopa, J (1976) Inheritance of the dimensions and facial
index in man. Genet. Pol. 17:401-412.
Tarvonen, PL, and Koski, K (1987) Craniofacial skeleton
of 7-year-old children with enlarged adenoids. Am. J.
Orthod. 91 ~300-304.
Tattersall, I(1968)Multivariate analysis of some medieval
British cranial series. Man 3:284-292.
Troup, GM, Schanfield, MS, Singaraju, CH, Harvey, RL,
Jameson, J, Capper, J, and Baker, B (1982) Study of
HLA doantigens of the Navajo Indians of North America. Tissue Antigens 20:339-351.
Vinkka, H, and Koski, K (1975) Variability of the craniofacial skeleton. 11. Comparison between two age groups.
Am. J . O d d . 67~34-43.
154
G.S. PHIPPS ET AL.
Vinkka, H, Koski, K, and McNamara, J A (1975) Variability of the craniofacial skeleton. 111. Radiographic cephalometry of juvenile Macaca mulatta. Am. J . Orthod.
681-7.
Watnick, SS (1972) Inheritance of craniofacial morphology. Angle Orthod. 42:339-351.
Waugh, LM (1937) Influence of the diet on the jaws and
face of the American Eskimo. J. Am. Dent. Assoc.
24:1640-1647.
WiIkinson, L (1986) Systat: The System for Statistics. Evanston, Illinois: Systat, Inc.
Williams, RC, Steinberg, AG, Gershowitz, P, Bennett, PH,
Knowler, WC, Pettitt, DJ, Butler, W, Baird, R, DowdaRea, L, Burch, TA, Morse, HG, and Smith, CG (1985)
GM allotypes in Native Americans: Evidence for three
distinct migrations across the Bering Land Bridge. Am.
J. Phys. Anthropol. 661-19.
Woodside, DG, and Linder-Aronson, S (1979) The channelization of upper and lower anterior face heights compared to population standard in males between ages 6
to 20 years. Eur. J. Orthod. 1:25-40.
Yablokov, AV (1974) Variability of Mammals. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Technical Information Service.
Документ
Категория
Без категории
Просмотров
1
Размер файла
758 Кб
Теги
north, variation, craniofacial, caucasia, indian, comparative, american, navajo
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа