Craniofacial development is a critical aspect of pediatric growth, influencing fields such as physical anthropology, pediatrics, forensic sciences, and clinical practice. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the trends in craniofacial measurements and indices in Latvian children aged 1–15. Methods: The anthropometrical measurements (head circumference, length, width, facial length, and width) were conducted on 375 children according to the guidelines by R. Martin, K. Saller, and J. Prīmanis at the Anthropology laboratory at the Institute of Anatomy and Anthropology, Rīga Stradiņš University. The cephalic index (CI) and the facial or prosopic index (PI) were calculated, allowing for a detailed examination of cranial and facial proportions. The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, including the Pearson Chi-square test and the Spearman correlation coefficient. Results: The findings revealed a consistent increase in head circumference with age, with boys generally having slightly larger heads than girls. The boys and girls exhibited growth in head length and width, particularly noticeable between 1 and 2 years of age. Facial length and width increased with age, with boys typically having longer facial lengths and broader faces than girls. The most common cephalic index category is mesocephaly, which accounts for 52.85% of the population, followed by dolichocephaly at 32.94%. Brachycephaly and hyperbrachycephaly are less prevalent, representing 11.36% and 2.86% of the population. Regarding the facial index categories, hypereuryprosopic is the most prevalent, representing 45.54% of the population, closely followed by euryprosopic at 43.74%. Mesoprosopic is significantly less common, representing only 9.95%. The least common categories are leptoprosopic and hyperleptoprosopic, with prevalences of 0.64% and 0.12%, respectively. The indices analysis showed variations across age groups, with dolichocephaly being more common at younger ages and decreasing over time. Brachycephaly and hyperbrachycephaly remained relatively stable or decreased slightly with age, while mesocephaly displayed less variation. The relationship between the FI and CI in younger age groups was typically weak to moderate and inverse, with a significance level of p < 0.001 or p < 0.01. However, no meaningful correlation was observed in older children aged 14–15. Conclusions: This study provides valuable insights into the craniofacial development of Latvian children, highlighting the measurements, cranial and facial types, and their variations across age groups.
