Sexual dimorphism of the hip joint in Greeks.

The objective of the present study was to report our measurements of hip bones within the Greek population and review the possible implications of these differences in their health as well as in social life. For this purpose the remains of 100 male and 100 female pelvic and femoral bones were studied. The distance from the pubic tubercle to the anterior rim of the acetabulum, the acetabulum diameter between its rims, their ratio, the depth of the acetabulum, the diameter of the femoral head and the ratio between the femoral head and the diameter of the acetabulum were measured. It was found that in males, in comparison to the females, the distance from the pubic tubercle to the anterior rim of the acetabulum was smaller while the acetabulum diameter and its depth, the diameter of the femoral head and the ratio between femoral head and the acetabulum diameter were larger. The above differences reached strong statistical significance. Of the two ratios used only the first one reached statistical significance. Using this ratio alone offered the best discrimination rate of up to 99% and should be the preferred choice when available.

[1]  L. G. Pellico,et al.  Biometry of the anterior border of the human hip bone: normal values and their use in sex determination. , 1992 .

[2]  M Y Işcan,et al.  Osteometric variation in the humerus: sexual dimorphism in South Africans. , 1999, Forensic science international.

[3]  F. P. Schulter-Ellis,et al.  Sexing North American Eskimo and Indian innominate bones with the acetabulum/pubis index. , 1988, Journal of forensic sciences.

[4]  J. Adams,et al.  Outline of Orthopaedics , 1960 .

[5]  M Graw,et al.  Determination of sex from femora. , 2000, Forensic science international.

[6]  B. Bengtsson,et al.  Growth hormone and the acquisition of bone mass. , 1997, Hormone research.

[7]  M Y Işcan,et al.  Sexual dimorphism in the Chinese femur. , 1995, Forensic science international.

[8]  Kerrigan Dc,et al.  Gender differences in joint biomechanics during walking: normative study in young adults. , 1998 .

[9]  J. Puzas,et al.  Stimulation of Bone Formation In Vivo by Insulin-Like Growth Factor-II in Rats , 1998, Calcified Tissue International.

[10]  P Brinckmann,et al.  Sex differences in the skeletal geometry of the human pelvis and hip joint. , 1981, Journal of biomechanics.

[11]  S. Canale,et al.  Campbell's operative orthopaedics , 1987 .

[12]  S. Grant,et al.  Vitamin D receptor polymorphism, bone mineral density, and osteoporotic vertebral fracture: studies in a UK population. , 1996, Bone.

[13]  T. Duckworth.  Lecture Notes on Orthopaedics and Fractures , 1980 .

[14]  G. Macho.  Is sexual dimorphism in the femur a "population specific phenomenon"? , 1990, Zeitschrift fur Morphologie und Anthropologie.

[15]  M Y Işcan,et al.  Sex determination from the tibia: standards for contemporary Japan. , 1994, Journal of forensic sciences.

[16]  R. Vieth,et al.  Sex differences in the effect of body-composition variables on bone mass in healthy children and adolescents. , 2004, The American journal of clinical nutrition.

[17]  A. Iglič,et al.  Increased incidence of arthrosis in women could be related to femoral and pelvic shape , 2004, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[18]  M. Işcan,et al.  Discriminant function sexing of the tibia. , 1984, Journal of forensic sciences.

[19]  L. G. Pellico,et al.  Osteometry of the Human Iliac Crest: Patterns of Normality and Its Utility in Sexing Human Remains , 1993 .

[20]  C. A. King,et al.  Metric and comparative analysis of sexual dimorphism in the Thai femur. , 1998, Journal of forensic sciences.