The Morphological Interaction Between the Nasal Cavity and Maxillary Sinuses in Living Humans

Abstract

To understand how variation in nasal architecture accommodates the need for effective conditioning of respired air, it is necessary to assess the morphological interaction between the nasal cavity and other aspects of the nasofacial skeleton. Previous studies indicate that the maxillary sinuses may play a key role in accommodating climatically induced nasal variation such that a decrease in nasal cavity volume is associated with a concomitant increase in maxillary sinus volume. However, due to conflicting results in previous studies, the precise interaction of the nasal cavity and maxillary sinuses, in humans, is unclear. This is likely due to the prior emphasis on nasal cavity size, whereas arguably, nasal cavity shape is more important with regard to the interaction with the maxillary sinuses. Using computed tomography scans of living human subjects (N540), the goal of this study is to assess the interaction between nasal cavity form and maxillary sinus volume in European-and African-derived individuals with differences in nasal cavity morphology. First, we assessed whether there is an inverse relationship between nasal cavity and maxillary sinus volumes. Next, we examined the relationship between maxillary sinus volume and nasal cavity shape using multivariate regression. Our results show that there is a positive relationship between nasal cavity and maxillary sinus volume, indicating that the maxillary sinuses do not accommodate variation in nasal cavity size. However, maxillary sinus volume is significantly correlated with variation in relative internal nasal breadth. Thus, the maxillary sinuses appear to be important for accommodating nasal cavity shape rather than size. Anat Rec, 296:414-426, 2013. V C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Key words: climate; computed tomography; human variation; pneumatizationThe nasofacial skeleton displays a wide range of morphological variation among recent modern human populations. Variability in this region of the cranium has been largely assessed within the context of climatic adaptation (Thomson

Ontogenetic scaling of the human nose in a longitudinal sample: Implications for genus Homo facial evolution

“…Thus, while there is evidence to suggest that the nasal region may be somewhat modularized with regard to other aspects of craniofacial morphology such as the lateral facial skeleton and the dentognathic region (Chierici et al, 1973;Ant on, 1989; Ackermann, 2005;Polanski and Franciscus, 2006;Rhode and Arriaza, 2006;Holton and Franciscus, 2008;Mitteroecker and Bookstein, 2008), nasal skeletal form may be more tightly integrated with other components of the respiratory system (e.g., Enlow, 1990;Rosas and Bastir, 2002;Hall, 2005;Bastir, 2008;Yokley et al, 2009;. The influence of respiratory function on population and taxonomic variation in nasal cavity form is already well established with respect to the effects of climate and the need to properly heat and humidify respired air (Proetz, 1953;Walker et al, 1961;Franciscus and Trinkaus, 1988;Cole, 1992;Franciscus, 1995;Yokley, 2006Yokley, , 2009Noback et al, 2011;Sahin-Yilmaz and Naclerio, 2011;Holton et al, 2013). However, the potential influence of oxygen consumption requirements associated with body mass on nasal morphology is less clear.…”

Ecogeographic variation across morphofunctional units of the human nose

“…The suggestion that climate may influence the overall dimensions of the internal nasal fossa has generally been supported by the few studies that have attempted to quantitatively investigate nasal fossa morphology (Charles, 1930;Evteev et al, 2014;Franciscus, 1995;Fukase, Ito, & Ishida, 2016;Holton, Yokley, & Butaric, 2013;Noback et al, 2011;Yokley, 2009). For example, in a relatively comprehensive study across regional samples from the western Old World, Franciscus (1995) found supra-Saharan crania (North Africa, Near East, and Europe) to possess longer, taller and narrower nasal cavities than sub-Saharan African populations, with regional differences especially apparent for measurements assessing superior (i.e., ethmoidal) breadth of the nasal fossa.…”

Fetal and neonatal maxillary ontogeny in extant humans and the utility of prenatal maxillary morphology in predicting ancestral affiliation

“…The midfacial morphology of H. sapiens varies between populations and this variation is argued to in part reflect climatic adaptations (Churchill et al, 2004; Yokley, 2009; Holton et al, 2013; Evteev et al, 2014). Differences between modern human midfaces and Neandertal midfaces have also been argued to be due to climatic differences.…”