Bipartite parietal bone: a case from Croatian population

Authors

  • Željana Bašić University of Split, University Department of Forensic Sciences, Ruđera Boškovića 33, 21000 Split
  • Ivan Jerković University of Split, University Department of Forensic Sciences, Ruđera Boškovića 33, 21000 Split
  • Tina Bareša University of Split, University Department of Forensic Sciences, Ruđera Boškovića 33, 21000 Split
  • Nika Jerković University of Split, Faculty of Science, Ruđera Boškovića 33, 21000 Split
  • Saša Mladenović University of Split, Faculty of Science, Ruđera Boškovića 33, 21000 Split
  • Ivan Skejić University Hospital Center Split, Clinical Department for Diagnostic and Intervention Radiology, Spinčićeva 1, 21000 Split
  • Krešimir Dolić University Hospital Center Split, Clinical Department for Diagnostic and Intervention Radiology, Spinčićeva 1, 21000 Split
  • Ivana Kružić University of Split, University Department of Forensic Sciences, Ruđera Boškovića 33, 21000 Split

Keywords:

cranial variation, epigenetic traits, bipartite parietal bone, MSCT, Croatia

Abstract

This study reports the first case of the bipartite parietal bone in the Croatian modern and archaeological population. We have examined 458 skulls from Multi-Slice Computed Tomography (MSCT) images and found only one case of this trait (0.22%; 95%CI 0.01%-1.21%). The bone exhibiting an additional suture was the left parietal; the type of the trait was complete, horizontal, and asymmetrical. Some additional sutural bones were observed, including asterion and lambda ossicle and two lambdoid ossicles. Among the other epigenetic variants, parietal, zygofacial, oval, and mastoid foramina, frontal grooves, supratrochlear notch, and condylar canal were visible. The principal components analysis (PCA) of features extracted from the frontal, lateral, and posterior view of 110 female crania using a convolutional neural network (CNN) for image analysis demonstrated that the skull deviated from the average female skull in the population. The visual and metric examination of the skull showed ultrabrachycephaly, mild lateral deformational plagiocephaly, and depression on the posterior part of the skull.

The rarity of this case in the Croatian population indicated that this variant could be interesting for both clinicians and forensic anthropologists, as it can be used as means of comparative identification. Further studies will show its importance in assessing population affinities and relations inside the graveyards.

References

Abdel‐Salam, G. M. H., Abdel‐Hadi, S., Thomas, M. M., Eid, O. M., Ali, M. M., & Afifi, H. H. (2014). Gómez‐López‐hernández syndrome versus rhombencephalosynapsis spectrum: A rare co‐occurrence with bipartite parietal bone. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 164(2), 480–483.

Angonese, A., Sonnaert, M., Rassart, A., Gauquier, N., & Cavatorta, E. (2010). Skull fracture or bipartite parietal bone. Archives de Pediatrie: Organe Officiel de La Societe Francaise de Pediatrie, 17(4), 391–393.

Becker, D. B., Cheverud, J. M., Govier, D. P., & Kane, A. A. (2005). Os parietale divisum. Clinical Anatomy: The Official Journal of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists and the British Association of Clinical Anatomists, 18(6), 452–456.

Berry, R. J. A. (1909). A case of os parietale bipartitum in an Australian aboriginal skull. Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, 44(Pt 1), 73.

Bessell‐Browne, R. J., & Thonell, S. (2004). Bipartite parietal bone: a rare cause of plagiocephaly. Australasian Radiology, 48(2), 248–250.

Bhatt, A. A., Hunsaker, J., & Kalina, P. (2014). Pearls and pitfalls of pediatric head trauma imaging. Applied Radiology, 43, 10.

Callejas Pastor, C. A., Jung, I.-Y., Seo, S., Kwon, S. Bin, Ku, Y., & Choi, J. (2020). Two-dimensional image-based screening tool for infants with positional cranial deformities: A machine learning approach. Diagnostics, 10(7), 495.

Fenton, L. Z., Sirotnak, A. P., & Handler, M. H. (2000). Parietal pseudofracture and spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage suggesting nonaccidental trauma: report of 2 cases. Pediatric Neurosurgery, 33(6), 318–322.

Flössel, U., Hahn, G., Schmitter, S., & Erfurt, C. (2013). Fallstrick: Os parietale bipartitum. Rechtsmedizin, 23(6), 482–484.

Garson, J. G. (1887). The Cephalic Index. The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 16, 11–17.

Goss, C. M. (1954). Gray’s Anatomy. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.

Gray, H. (1901). Gray’s Anatomy (1995th ed.). New York: Barnes and Noble.

Hauser, G., & De Stefano, G. F. (1989). Epigenetic variants of the human skull. Stuttgart: Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Hossain, M. G., Lestrel, P. E., & Ohtsuki, F. (2004). Secular changes in head dimensions of Japanese females over eight decades. Anthropological Science, 407120011.

Hrdlička, A. (1903). Divisions of the parietal bone in man and other mammals. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 9, 231–386.

Langley, N. R., Jantz, L. M., Ousley, S. D., Jantz, R. L., & Milner, G. (2016). Data collection procedures for forensic skeletal material 2.0. Knoxville, Tennessee: The University of Tennessee.

Looman, W. S., & Flannery, A. B. K. (2012). Evidence-based care of the child with deformational plagiocephaly, Part I: assessment and diagnosis. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 26(4), 242–250.

Prado, P. S. A., García-Donas, J. G., Langstaff, H., Cunha, E., Kyriakou, P., & Kranioti, E. F. (2016). Os parietale partitum: Exploring the prevalence of this trait in four contemporary populations. Homo, 67(4), 261–272.

Sanchez, T., Stewart, D., Walvick, M., & Swischuk, L. (2010). Skull fracture vs. accessory sutures: how can we tell the difference? Emergency Radiology, 17(5), 413–418.

Shapiro, R. (1972). Anomalous parietal sutures and the bipartite parietal bone. The American Journal of Roentgenology Radium Therapy and Nuclear Medicine, 115(3), 569–577.

Simonyan, K., & Zisserman, A. (2015). Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015 - Conference Track Proceedings, 1–14.

Topinard, P. (1885). Éléments d’anthropologie générale. Bulletins de La Société d’anthropologie de Paris, 1(8), 14–17.

Weir, P., Suttner, N. J., Flynn, P., & McAuley, D. (2006). Normal skull suture variant mimicking intentional injury. British Medical Journal, 332(7548), 1020–1021.

Wiedijk, J. E. F., Soerdjbalie-Maikoe, V., Maat, G. J. R., Maes, A., Van Rijn, R. R., & De Boer, H. H. (2016). An accessory skull suture mimicking a skull fracture. Forensic Science International, 260, e11–e13.

Zupanič Slavec, Z. (2012). New method of identifying family related skulls: Forensic medicine, anthropology, epigenetics. Springer Science & Business Media.

Downloads

Published

2022-12-16