Szekessy Vilmos (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 60. (Budapest 1968)

Bottyán, O.: An analysis of the palatal measuring methods

An Analysis of the Palatal Measuring Methods By OLGA L. BOTTYÁN, Budapest With respect to the palatal contours and measurements, no uniform views were held for a long time. At the end of the last century, the dispute raged between two camps. FLOWER, TURNER, DUCKWORTH and others were for maximum observations, hence they considered the palate as including also the alveolare. They were followed by CAMPBELL, even in his detailed study. The other side, led by BROCA, PARSONS, THOMSON, and HRDLICKA, have restricted the term of the palate and handled the alveolar part separately (CAMPBELL, 1925). For the sake of ending the dispute, the international congress of Monaco in 1906 gave an exact definition of the contours and measuring points of the hard pala te The palate was to be regarded as the inner, restricted portion, separated from the maxilloalveolar area and measurements. These measurements, accepted by the congress, were published also by MARTIN, and subsequently the numerals 60, 61 denoted the palatomaxillary, and 62, 63 the palatal, measurements. It was NICOLE HEINTZ'S treatise (1961) which proposed the partial alteration, from a revised point of view, of these classical palatal measurement methods. The aim of the present paper is a comparison, on the basis of fresh materials, of the classical palatal measurement technique with that suggested by HEINTZ. Heintz's measuring method N. HEINTZ'S new measuring points are anatomical points, namely the opening of nerves. According to her, their location is more stable than those serving for the conduction of veins. For one of the measuring points of length the hindmost point of the foramen incisivum is taken instead of the orale point, thus one of the virtual longitudinal measuring points is eliminated. The other measuring point of length, namely the staphylion, remains unaltered. Breadth is measured between the points nearest to one another of the two posterior palatal nerve openings. My comments as regards the new measuring points and HEINTZ'S arguments submitted to corroborate their correctness are as follows. There is no doubt that this method allows the measuring of a greater number of palates, since the classical method is unfit to measure the palate of either young or senile individuals. Fragmentary skulls are also less measurable by the classical method. In my material, the palatal breadth proved to be unmeasurable in 11.4 per cent when the classical measuring points were applied, but in merely 1.7 per cent when measured by HEINTZ'S measuring points. If the palatal growth is to be studied, the latter method is again more advantageous, as expounded already by HEINTZ, since the foramens cited above are present already prenatally and subsist continually also during growth. According to HEINTZ, the foramens are hardly changing orifices and remain constant also as to location. Although the calibre of the foramen incisivum changes