ISSN 2415-3060 (print), ISSN 2522-4972 (online)
  • 7 of 45
Up
УЖМБС 2018, 3(3): 34–38
https://doi.org/10.26693/jmbs03.03.034
Experimental Medicine and Morphology

Cephalometric Differences between Healthy People and People with Functional Impairment of Visual Acuity at the Age of 17-20

Miroshnychenko O. O.
Abstract

The prevalence of visual acuity disorders in the human population worldwide causes a variety of studies of this problem, including the use of modern means of medical imaging and morphometry. An indication of the anomalies of sight from the point of view of constitutional features and somatotype can be considered as a sign of the last two decades, but the work on cephalometric analysis of morphofunctional parameters of the eye is almost absent, despite the fact that this aspect of the problem has a fairly long history. The purpose of the research is to study the cephalometric differences between healthy people and people with functional impairment of visual acuity at the age of 17-20. Materials and methods. 107 persons aged 17-20 (32 men and 75 women) were divided into two groups: the first one comprised 57 people with normal visual acuity, and the second included 50 people with functional disorders (refraction violation). Based on the obtained data of 17-20 years old healthy people’s cephalometric parameters and those with functional vision we have determined definitive indexes (for healthy) and informative morphological indicators to assess the risk of visual disturbances. Results and discussion. Among the 17 year-olds, there were significant (at a level not less than p <0,05) cephalometric features that are informative in relation to the formation of visual acuity disorders. They are: lower morphological height of the face, lower physiognomic height of the face, distances tragion-subspinale, tragion-subspinale distances and tragion-sellion distances and, respectively, reduction of the nasal index. A smaller longitudinal head diameter, smaller noseband height, smaller nose width, lower tragion-sellion distance were identified among the 18 year olds together with the main index increase. Among the 19 year-olds, we identified the following cephalometric features: growth of the minimum forehead width, increase in its height, increase of the external and internal inter-channel distances, increase the distance of the sellion-front temporal and tragion-sellion distances, as well as a significantly larger facial index. Among the 20 year-olds, the cephalometric features that were as follows: increased head cross-diameter and its maximal girth, increase in the face physiognomic height and an increased maximum forehead width, an increase in the internal inter- distances, as well as distances tragion-sellion, tragion-subarea distance, and larger values of the fronto-mandibular index. Conclusions. The research proved that there is a difference between cephalometric parameters for each age group in relation to forming their functional disorders of visual acuity. The study helped determine the most significant cephalometric parameters for each age group (from 17 to 20), taking into account the individual peculiarities of ontogenetic development. The determined cephalometric parameters should be used in the system of screening-risk assessment and early diagnosis of functional visual impairment. Prospects for further research are related to the study of morphological parameters of eyeballs in people with different cephalotypes and correlation interactions between them.

Keywords: anatomy, cephalometry, eyeball

Full text: PDF (Ukr) 196K

References
  1. Avetisov ES. Oftalmologiya. Natsionalnoe rukovodstvo. M: GEOTAR-media, 2008. 1017 s. [Russian]
  2. Ananin VF. Teoreticheskie osnovy refraktogeneza. Oftalmologicheskiy zhurnal. 1990; 1: 42-6. [Russian]
  3. Dashevskiy AI. O korrelyatsiyakh osnovnykh elementov anatomo-opticheskoy sistemy glaz. Oftalmologicheskiy zhurnal. 1983; 4: 209-13. [Russian]
  4. Skorodinskaya VV, Chernykh SS, Vyazovskiy NA, i dr. Zavisimost mezhdu velichinoy refraktsii i nekotorymi anatomo- fiziologicheskimi osobennostyami organa zreniya u blizorukikh. Aktualnye voprosy oftalmologii: Sb nauch tr Kiev med in-ta. Kiev, 1970. s. 107-8. [Russian]
  5. Ivanov DF. Rost glaza i protsess formirovaniya refraktsii. Vozrastnye osobennosti organa zreniya v norme i pri patologii: Tr 2-go MOLGMI im NI Pirogova. Ed EI Kovalevskiy. M, 1971; III: 40-2. [Russian]
  6. Lantukh VV, Filatova OM, Pytel NO. O svyazi miopii s nekotorymi pokazatelyami fizicheskogo sostoyaniya organizma cheloveka. Aktualnye voprosy oftalmologii. Kemerovo, 2003. s. 131-2. [Russian]
  7. Maklakov AN. Otnosheniya mezhdu formoyu cherepa i rasstroystvami zreniya. Izv Ob-va lyub estest, antrop i etn. M, 1876; XX: 62-7. [Russian]
  8. Pytel NO, Filatov OM. Organ zreniya i konstitutsiya cheloveka. Aktualnye problemy klinicheskoy oftalmologii. Chelyabinsk, 1999. s. 310-3. [Russian]
  9. Rykov SA. Glaz kak sistema. Struktura. Funktsiya. Vzaimosvyaz. Kiev: Medekol, 2000. 183 s. [Russian]
  10. Sergienko NM, Kondratenko YuN. Patogeneticheskie faktory miopizatsii chelovecheskogo glaza. Patogenez blizorukosti, profilaktika ee progressirovaniya i oslozhneniy: Mater mezhdunar simp, 6-8 dek 1990. M, 1990. s. 53-6. [Russian]
  11. Tron EZh. Izmenchivost elementov opticheskogo apparata glaza i eyo znachenie dlya kliniki. L, 1947. 270 s. [Russian]
  12. Hosny M, Alio JL, Claramonte P. Relationship between anterior chamber depth, refractive state, corneal diameter, and axial length. J Refract Surg. 2000; 16: 336–40.
  13. Kanski JJ, Bowling B. Clinical Ophthalmology: A Systematic Approach. 7th Edition. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2011. 920 p.
  14. Larsen JS. Axial length of the emmetropic eye and its relation to the head size. Acta Opthalmol. 1979; 57: 76–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-3768.1979.tb06662.x
  15. Robert N, Kleisfein LA, Sandral H, Soonsi K, Lee RJ, Friedman NE, Manny RE, et al. Refractive error and ethnicity in children. Arch Ophthal. 2003; 121: 1141¬-7.
  16. Sang Hoon Park, Ki Ho Park, Joon Mo Kim. Relation between Axial Length and Ocular Parameters. Ophthalmologica. 2010; 224: 188-93. https://doi.org/10.1159/000252982