Effects of different kinds of cranial deformation on the incidence of wormian bones

Abstract

Researchers have debated whether the presence and frequency of wormian bones (sutural bones, supernumerary bones, and ossicles) are attributable to genetic factors, environmental factors, or both. This research examines the effects of many different kinds of cranial deformation on the incidence of wormian bones. A sample of 127 deformed and undeformed crania from New World archaeological sites was examined. An undeformed cranial sample (n=35) was compared to the following cranially deformed groups: 1) occipital, 2) lambdoid, 3) annular, 4) fronto-vertico-occipital, 5) parallelo-fronto-occipital, and 6) sagittal synostosis. Three levels of degree of cultural cranial deformation were qualitatively determined. Type and number of wormian bones along each major suture were recorded for each cranium. Group means were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA statistical tests to test the null hypothesis that cranial deformation does not have an effect on wormian bone incidence. Results indicate that all forms of cranial deformation affect the frequency of some types of wormian bones. In particular, all cranially deformed groups exhibited significantly greater frequencies of lambdoid ossicles. Apical, parieto-mastoid, and occipito-mastoid wormian bones also appeared with greater frequency in some groups of culturally deformed crania. Further, varying degrees of cultural deformation all had more lambdoid wormian bones than the undeformed group. These results suggest that wormian bone development in posteriorly placed sutures may be affected more by environmental forces than are their anteriorly placed counterparts.

Pseudoclosure of Anterior Fontanelle by Wormian Bone in Isolated Sagittal Craniosynostosis

“…It has been suggested that this may occur due to restriction of growth perpendicular to the suture, thus placing higher than normal tension on the suture, resulting in bony islands within the membranous portion [2]. In another study on crania obtained from archeological sites [3], the crania with evidence of isolated sagittal craniosynostosis were found to have an increased number of posteriorly placed wormian bones. The author concluded that wormian bone development in posteriorly placed sutures may be affected more by environmental forces than in the anteriorly placed sutures.…”

“…The author concluded that wormian bone development in posteriorly placed sutures may be affected more by environmental forces than in the anteriorly placed sutures. This would suggest that the development of anterior fontanelle wormian bone could be genetically influenced [3]. If this indeed is the case, it would mean that children with an anterior fontanelle wormian bone could have a genetic basis for concomitant sagittal craniosynostosis.…”

“…There is controversy as to whether the presence and frequency of wormian bones is attributable to genetic factors, environmental factors or both [3]. Experimental studies have shown that in experimentally produced coronal synostosis in rabbits, there is a marked increase in the incidence of wormian bones in the coronal suture after the initiation of synostosis [2].…”

Anatomoradiological identification of intrasutural bones for importance of cranial fracture

“…Despite the fact that the variations in appearance shapes of the sutural bones and its incidence have been recognized in previous radiological and anatomical studies, it has been observed that the pattern of intrasutural bone was not as simple as had been reported many authors (6,7,11,10,18,19,21,22,(28)(29)(30). However, in adult skulls, the location of the preinterparietal bones is different; they are found at the lambda.…”

Federal Repatriation Legislation and the Role of Physical Anthropology in Repatriation

“…The testability and reliability of methods are necessary to establish that conclusions are objectively arrived at, rather than reached through mere subjective opinion. The Daubert standard for evaluations by a scientific expert is higher than for most physical anthropology publications, in which papers can be published despite questionably supported conclusions, methodological problems, and reliability concerns (Weaver, 1980;Henneberg, 1996, 2001;O'Loughlin, 2004;cf. Donnelly et al, 1998;Hill, 2000;Scheuer, 2002;Wilczak and Ousley, 2005).…”