Back to the list
Congress: ECR25
Poster Number: C-26737
Type: Poster: EPOS Radiologist (scientific)
DOI: 10.26044/ecr2025/C-26737
Authorblock: H. Sasani1, M. Ozkan1, H. H. Celik2; 1Tekirdag/TR, 2Ankara/TR
Disclosures:
Hadi Sasani: Nothing to disclose
Mazhar Ozkan: Nothing to disclose
Hakan Hamdi Celik: Nothing to disclose
Keywords: Anatomy, Bones, Head and neck, CT, Computer Applications-3D, Computer Applications-General, Education and training, Forensics
Results

In our study, CT images of 1800 individuals (891 females, 909 males) aged 20-79 years were included and the values of 1590 individuals with prominent EOP were analyzed separately. In the study, morphological values were compared in 6 age groups including 300 individuals in deciles. The mean and standard deviation values of the measured parameters related to EOP in the cases included in the study are given in Table 1.

In cases without significant EOP observed, EOP-related parameters could not be measured and are shown as "Not Applicable (N/A)". In our study, the frequency of EOP types according to age groups in six deciles (20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, and 70-79) was investigated and compared statistically.

In the 20-29 age group, Type I was seen in 74 cases (24.7%), Type II in 149 cases (49.7%), and Type III in 30 cases (10%), while EOP could not be differentiated in 47 cases (15.7%).

In the 30-39 age group, Type I was seen in 54 cases (18%), Type II in 175 cases (58.3%), and Type III in 27 cases (9%), while EOP could not be differentiated in 44 cases (14.7%).

In the 40-49 age group, Type I was seen in 50 cases (16.7%), Type II in 188 cases (62.7%), and Type III in 22 cases (7.3%), while EOP could not be differentiated in 40 cases (13.3%).

In the 50-59 age group, Type I was seen in 50 cases (16.7%), Type II in 189 cases (63%), and Type III in 26 cases (8.7%), while EOP could not be differentiated in 35 cases (11.7%).

In the 60-69 age group, Type I was seen in 80 cases (26.7%), Type II in 176 cases (58.7%), and Type III in 28 cases (9.3%), while EOP could not be differentiated in 16 cases (5.3%).

In the 70-79 age group, Type I was seen in 86 cases (28.7%), Type II in 166 cases (55.3%), and Type III in 20 cases (6.7%), while EOP could not be differentiated in 28 cases (9.3%).

According to the Chi-square test results, a significant difference was found between age groups (p<0,001). Height, base, distance to the FMAG, and angle of the EOP were compared between the EOP types. Significant differences were observed in all other comparisons (p<0.001) except for the distance to the FMAG of Type II and Type III EOPs (p=0.199).

The correlation analysis of the morphometric characteristics of the EOPs were summarised in Table 2. 

The correlation between the measured parameters was analyzed separately in males and females. A strong negative correlation was observed between angle and height in both sexes (male -0.514 and female -0.307, p<0.01). 
GALLERY