Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Veterinary Medicine and Science logoLink to Veterinary Medicine and Science
. 2025 Aug 23;11(5):e70536. doi: 10.1002/vms3.70536

Craniometric and Topographic Analysis of British Shorthair and Scottish Fold Cats Using Three‐Dimensional Modelling

Yeşim Aslan Kanmaz 1,✉, Fatma İşbilir 2, Barış Can Güzel 2
PMCID: PMC12374551  PMID: 40848017

ABSTRACT

Background

This study aimed to investigate the craniometric and topographic measurements of the skull and mandible of British shorthair and Scottish fold cats using computed tomography and 3D software.

Materials and Methods

For this purpose, in a total of 26 cats, 13 British shorthair (7 males and 6 females) and 13 (7 males and 6 females) Scottish fold cats were used in the study. The skulls were scanned with 64‐detector multislice Siemens computed tomography devices at 80 kV, 200 MA, 639 mGY and 0.625 mm section thickness. The resulting images were saved in DICOM format. They were modelled and measured with 3D slicer software.

Results

In the study, surface area measurements were found to be statistically significant in both cat breeds (British shorthair: p < 0.01; Scottish fold: p < 0.05). However, in mandibular measurements, the CAP parameter was statistically significant only in Scottish fold cats (p < 0.01), whereas no significant difference was observed in British shorthair cats (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Craniometric and topographical measurements were performed in British shorthair and Scottish fold cats using a 3D model to reveal the differences between male and female. It will also guide the determination of taxonomic locations of these two species and the detection of morphometric differences between the sexes.

Keywords: cat, computed tomography, mandible, skull

This study presents a 3D CT‐based morphometric comparison of the skull and mandible in British Shorthair and Scottish fold cats. Significant sex‐based differences were observed in various cranial, mandibular and topographic measurements. Results contribute to veterinary anatomy, anaesthesia planning and breed‐specific morphological characterization.

graphic file with name VMS3-11-e70536-g006.jpg

1. Introductıon

British shorthair breed cats are one of the most preferred breeds as pets in homes with their very dense fur and gentle characters (Taylor 1989). Scottish fold is a purebred cat. It originates from Scotland. The most prominent feature is the forward‐folded ears (Todds 1972). Their skulls have a brachycephalic shape (Demir and Altundağ 2020; Gündemir, Szara Yalin, et al. 2023).

The skull is a strong structure consisting of many paired and single bones, some of which are centrally located and single. This structure includes the brain, sensory organs such as vision, smell, balance and taste, upper respiratory and digestive tracts. The mandible is the lower jaw bone. It has a movable joint in the skull. The cranial bones are connected to each other by sutures and to the mandibulae and apparatus hyoideus by joints (König and Liebich 2009). Cranial morphometry is used in taxonomy, forensic medicine and zooarchaeology because of specific differences between races and sexes (Kobryńczuk et al. 2008; Adebisi 2009; Onar et al. 2015). The phenotypic characteristics of cranial changes may vary according to the growing environment, breed and nutritional status (Elbroch 2006).

In recent years, developments in medical imaging systems have led to the replacement of two‐dimensional (2D) anatomical structures with three‐dimensional (3D) models (Rubio et al. 2019). In the medical sector, models can be obtained using cross‐sectional imaging methods (computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, etc.) and have an important role in the detailed examination of structures, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of diseases (Demircioğlu and Ince 2020; Morone et al. 2019; Parthasarathy 2014).

There are many modelling techniques in recent years. With these techniques, geometric and morphometric measurements of the skull reveal the differences between species and races (Gündemir, Özkan, et al. 2020; Jashari et al. 2022; Gündemir, Duro, et al. 2020). This study is to reveal the 3D modelling and anatomical structures of the skull and lower jaw of British shorthair and Scottish fold cats using computerized tomography. In addition, it was carried out to obtain morphometric measurement values, to reveal topographic measurements and to reveal the differences between genders.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Animal Materials

In a total of 26 cats, 13 British shorthair (7 males and 6 females) and 13 (7 males and 6 females) Scottish fold cats were used in the study. The ages of the cats ranged from 1 to 8 years. Computed tomography images of the cats were collected from different animal hospitals in Türkiye. Consent forms were obtained from the owners of the cats.

2.2. Computed Tomography Methodology

The skulls of the cats were scanned using a 64‐detector MDCT (General Electric Revolution) device at 80 kV, 200 MA, 639 mGY and 0.625 mm slice thickness. Prokop (2003) was taken as reference for scan dose and protocol. Cat skull CT scans were saved in DICOM format. Reconstructions were performed using 3D Slicer (5.0.2) software. The volume and surface area of the cat skull models were calculated with the segment statics application in the 3D slicer software.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The mean values, standard deviations, coefficient of variations and craniofacial indices were calculated with SPSS (version 22). Independent samples t‐test was used for p values.

2.4. Three‐Dimensional Model and Measurement Points

On the 3D models obtained, 34 parameters and volume–surface area of the skull were measured. On the mandible of cats, 17 measurement parameters and volume–surface area were measured. From the topographic measurements made on the skull and mandible, 20 measurement parameters were measured. Measurements made on the skull were taken (Rooppakhun et al. 2011). Measurement parameters on the mandible were taken (Yılmaz and Demircioğlu 2019). Topographic measurements on the skull and mandible were taken (Ducic et al. 2024). Measurement points of cat skulls are given in Figures 1 and 2. Mandible measurement points are given in Figures 3 and 4. Topographic measurement points are given in Figures 5 and 6.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Measurement points taken from cat skulls (A: dorsal and B: caudal).

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Measurement points taken from cat skulls (A: ventral and B: lateral).

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Measurement points taken from cat mandibles from the lateral side.

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

Measurement points taken from cat mandibles from the dorso‐ventral side.

FIGURE 5.

FIGURE 5

Open in a new tab

Topographic measurement points taken from cat skulls.

FIGURE 6.

FIGURE 6

Open in a new tab

Topographic measurement points taken on cat mandibles.

2.5. Measurement and Index Points of Cat Skull

  1. TLS: Total length of the skull: the distance between akrokranion–prosthion

  2. FCL: Facial length: frontal midpoint–prosthion

  3. UNCL: Upper neurocranium length: akrokranion–frontal midpoint

  4. CL: Cranial length: akrokranion–nasion

  5. VL: Viscerocranial length: nasion–prosthion

  6. GLN: Greatest length of the nasals: nasion–rhinion

  7. LBO: Least breadth between the orbits: entorbitale–entorbitale

  8. GFB: Greatest frontal breadth: ectorbitale–ectorbitale

  9. LBS: Least breadth of skull: breadth at the postorbital constriction

  10. MWN: Maximum width of neurocranium: euryon–euryon

  11. MZW: Maximum zygomatic width: zygion–zygion

  12. CBL: Condylobasal length: caudal border of occipital condyles–prosthion

  13. BL: Basal length: basion–prosthion

  14. MPL: Median palatal length: staphylion–prosthion

  15. LHP: Length of the horizontal part of the palatine: staphylion–palatinoorale

  16. LHP‐1: Length of the horizontal part of the palatine‐1: the median point of intersection of the line joining the deepest indentations of the choana–palatinoorale

  17. PL: Palatal length: the median point of intersection of the line joining the deepest indentations of the choana–prosthion

  18. GBP: Greatest breadth of the palate: maximum width of the distal ends of the alveolus of upper P3

  19. LPB: Least palatal breadth

  20. BCA: Breadth at the canine alveoli

  21. LPR: Length of the premolar row

  22. LMR: Length of the molar row

  23. LCR: Length of the cheektooth row

  24. GDAB: Greatest diameter of the auditory bulla: from the most aboral point of the bulla on the suture with the jugular processes up to the external carotid foramen

  25. BEAM: Breadth dorsal to the external auditory meatus: breadth between external auditory porus

  26. GIHO: Greatest inner height of the orbit

  27. NL: Neurocranium length: basion–nasion

  28. SH: Skull height: basion‐external occipital crest

  29. HOT: Height of the occipital triangle: akrokranion–basion

  30. HFM: Height of the foramen magnum: basion–opisthion

  31. GWFM: Greatest breadth of the foramen magnum

  32. GBOC: Greatest breadth of the occipital condyles

  33. GBJP: Greatest breadth of the bases of the jugular processes

  34. GMB: Greatest mastoid breadth: otion–otion.

  • Skull index: Greatest frontal breadth (var.8)/Total length of the skull (var. 1) × 100.

  • Cranial index: Maximum width of neurocranium (var. 10)/Cranial length (var. 4) × 100.

  • For. magnum index: Height of the for. magnum (var. 30)/Greatest breadth of the for. magnum (var. 31) × 100.

  • Facial index‐1: Maximum zygomatic width (var. 11)/Viscerocranial length (var. 5) × 100.

  • Facial index‐2: Greatest breadth of the palate (var. 18)/Greatest length of the nasals (var. 6) × 100.

  • Basal indeks‐1: Maximum width of neurocranium (var. 10)/Basal length (var. 13) × 100.

  • Basal indeks‐2: Maximum zygomatic width (var. 11)/Basal length (var. 13) × 100.

  • Palatal index‐1: Greatest breadth of the palate (var. 18)/Median palatal length (var. 14) × 100.

  • Palatal index‐2: Greatest breadth of the palate (var. 18)/Palatal length (var. 17) × 100.

2.6. Measurement and Index Points of Cat Mandible

  1. TLM: Total length of the mandible (mm)

  2. PCD: Pogonion (most anterior point on the mandible) to coronoid process distance (mm)

  3. CAP: Length from the indentation between the condyle process and angular process to pogonion (mm)

  4. CBC: Condylar process to back of alveole C1 distance (mm)

  5. CAC: Length from the indentation between the condyle process and the angular process to the back of alveole C1 (mm)

  6. PML: P3‐M1 max length (mm)

  7. MML: M1 max length (mm)

  8. LPP: P3–P4 max length (mm)

  9. CML C1–M1 length between: length between the front of C1 and the back of M1 (mm)

  10. RAH ramus height: height of the ramus mandibulae (mm)

  11. MDM: Mandible depth at M1 (mm)

  12. MHP: Height of the mandible in front of P3 (mm)

  13. ABC: Angular process to back of alveole C1 distance (mm)

  14. PAD: Pogonion to angular process distance (mm)

  15. MWC: Mandibular width at the back of C1 alveole (mm)

  16. MWM: Mandible width at M1 (mm)

  17. MBC: Mandible breadth at coronoid process (mm)

  18. Volume: Volume of the mandible (cm3)

  19. Area: Surface area of the mandible (cm2).

2.7. Topographic Measurement Points of Cat Skull and Mandible

  • T1:

    Length of the sagittal axis of the infraorbital foramen

  • T2:

    Distance between the ventral end of the caudal margin of the infraorbital foramen and the alveolar margin of the maxilla

  • T3:

    Distance between the ventral end of the caudal margin of the infraorbital foramen and the orbital margin in the level of the lacrimal foramen

  • T4:

    Distance between the ventral end of the caudal margin of the infraorbital foramen and the dorsal end of the frontal process of the zygomatic bone

  • T5:

    Distance between the ventral end of the caudal margin of the infraorbital foramen and the rostral end of the alveolar margin of the incisive bone in the level of the first upper incisor tooth

  • T6:

    Distance between the ventral end of the caudal margin of the infraorbital foramen and the caudal end of the nuchal crest at the level of the median sagittal plane

  • T7:

    Length of the mandible from the condylar process to the oral margin of the mandibular symphysis

  • T8:

    Width of the mandible at the height of PM4

  • T9:

    Distance between the mandibular foramen and the ventral margin of the mandible

  • T10:

    Distance between the mandibular foramen and the angular process of the mandible

  • T11:

    Distance between the mandibular foramen and the condylar process of the mandible

  • T12:

    Distance between the mandibular foramen and the coronoid process of the mandible

  • T13:

    Distance between the caudal mental foramen and the caudal border of the mandible

  • T14:

    Distance between the middle and caudal mental foramina

  • T15:

    Distance between the middle mental foramen and the canine alveolus

  • T16:

    Diastema (C—PM3)

  • T17:

    Distance between the dorsal limit of the caudal mental foramen and the alveolar margin of the mandibular body

  • T18:

    Distance between the ventral limit of the caudal mental foramen and the ventral margin of the mandibular body

  • T19:

    Distance between the middle mental foramen and the alveolar margin of the mandibular body

  • T20:

    Distance between the ventral margin of the middle mental foramen and the ventral margin of the mandibular body.

3. Results

In this study, 34 parameters of the British and Scottish cat skull were measured. Nineteen parameters of the mandible and 20 topographic parameters of the skull and mandible were measured. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the group averages of morphometric measurement values in terms of continuous variables in males and females and the differences between genders. When the statistical results were analysed, statistically significant differences were found between the skull measurement values (p < 0.05; p < 0.01). Table 1 shows the measurement values of the skulls of British shorthair cats. Total length of the skull (TLS) of the measurement points indicates that males are larger than females. When condylobasal length (CBL), height of the foramen magnum (HFM) and AREA measurement parameters were analysed statistically, it was found to be highly statistically significant (p < 0.01). Table 1 shows the measurement values of the skulls of Scottish fold cats. TLS of the measurement points indicates that males are larger than females. When the LHP2 measurement parameter was analysed statistically, it was found to be highly statistically significant (p < 0.01). Facial length (FCL) and AREA measurement parameters were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05). Table 2 shows the measurement values of the mandibles of British shorthair cats. TLM from the measurement points shows that males are larger than females. PCD, CBC and PML measurement parameters were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05). Table 2 shows the measurement values of the mandibles of Scottish fold cats. TLM from the measurement points shows that males are larger than females. CAP and CML measurement parameters were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.01). PCD and VOLUME measurement parameters were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05). Table 3 shows the topographic measurement values of the skull and mandible of British shorthair cats. T3, T4, T16, T17 and T19 measurement parameters were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Table 3 shows the topographic measurement values of the skull and mandible of Scottish fold cats. The measurement parameters T16 and T20 were statistically significant (p < 0.01). T12, T13, T17 and T19 were statistically significant (p < 0.05). The skull indexes of British shorthair and Scottish fold cats are given in Table 4. When the skull indices of British shorthair cats were analysed, it was seen that females were larger than males in FMI, FI1, FI2, BI2, PI1 and PI2 indices. In addition, PI2 parameter was statistically significant between male and female cats (p < 0.05). When the head indices of Scottish fold cats were analysed, it was seen that females were larger than males in FMI, FI1, FI2, BI2 and PI2 indices. In addition, FM1 parameter was found to be statistically significant between male and female cats (p < 0.01). When FMI parameter was analysed, it was seen that there was a significant statistic between male and female cats (p < 0.05).

TABLE 1.

The measurement point of the skull of a British shorthair and Scottish fold cat (mm).

British shorthair cat Scottish fold
Gender N Mean Std. deviation p N Mean Std. deviation p
TLS Male 7 102.30 0.81 NS 7 101.74 1.75 NS
Female 6 98.46 0.81 6 97.65 1.36
FCL Male 7 56.16 1.16 NS 7 55.51 1.63 *
Female 6 52.31 0.79 6 52.31 0.79
UNCL Male 7 58.67 0.55 NS 7 57.53 1.57 NS
Female 6 53.30 0.75 6 52.28 1.18
CL Male 7 75.65 1.25 NS 7 75.13 1.13 NS
Female 6 73.52 1.25 6 72.57 1.49
VL Male 7 30.19 1.15 NS 7 30.19 1.15 NS
Female 6 28.34 0.66 6 26.73 2.37
GLN Male 7 24.11 0.72 NS 7 23.42 1.24 NS
Female 6 21.61 0.42 6 20.94 0.77
LBO Male 7 24.41 1.07 NS 7 24.12 1.52 NS
Female 6 22.12 0.79 6 21.49 0.49
GFB Male 7 53.31 1.37 NS 7 52.74 1.72 NS
Female 6 49.95 2.09 6 49.72 2.44
LBS Male 7 36.12 0.81 NS 7 35.55 1.54 NS
Female 6 32.25 0.77 6 31.58 1.10
MWN Male 7 44.08 0.84 NS 7 43.52 1.06 NS
Female 6 40.97 0.62 6 40.64 0.76
MZW Male 7 68.99 1.09 NS 7 68.63 1.36 NS
Female 6 66.87 0.84 6 66.19 1.19
CBL Male 7 90.32 0.58 ** 7 91.56 1.22 NS
Female 6 85.15 5.48 6 87.82 1.40
BL Male 7 82.63 0.73 NS 7 82.14 0.80 NS
Female 6 78.59 0.85 6 77.59 1.45
MPL Male 7 42.36 1.16 NS 7 42.21 0.63 NS
Female 6 39.32 1.34 6 39.32 1.34
LHP Male 7 19.23 0.64 NS 7 18.52 1.41 NS
Female 6 15.67 0.53 6 15.00 1.46
LHP2 Male 7 15.27 0.63 NS 7 15.77 0.62 **
Female 6 13.5 0.43 6 12.42 1.38
PL Male 7 37.52 0.78 NS 7 36.97 0.91 NS
Female 6 32.60 1.28 6 31.73 1.53
GBP Male 7 40.83 0.67 NS 7 39.97 1.44 NS
Female 6 37.94 0.93 6 36.23 1.88
LPB Male 7 25.74 0.62 NS 7 24.60 1.37 NS
Female 6 22.30 0.99 6 21.47 1.15
BCA Male 7 25.73 0.97 NS 7 24.88 1.18 NS
Female 6 22.63 1.01 6 21.96 1.57
LPR Male 7 20.97 0.63 NS 7 20.55 1.14 NS
Female 6 19.20 0.57 6 18.37 1.88
LMR Male 7 11.70 0.92 NS 7 11.41 1.05 NS
Female 6 10.78 0.37 6 10.36 0.62
LCR Male 7 25.57 0.67 NS 7 25.00 1.09 NS
Female 6 22.51 0.72 6 21.84 0.87
GDAB Male 7 22.36 0.70 NS 7 22.36 0.70 NS
Female 6 19.87 0.39 6 18.87 1.19
BEAM Male 7 36.37 0.76 NS 7 35 1.16 NS
Female 6 32.51 0.92 6 31.33 1.13
GIHO Male 7 28.46 0.77 NS 7 27.60 1.27 NS
Female 6 25.15 0.98 6 24.06 1.64
NL Male 7 65.88 0.88 NS 7 65.03 0.85 NS
Female 6 62.26 0.73 6 61.33 0.75
SH Male 7 33.55 0.43 NS 7 32.97 0.95 NS
Female 6 30.45 0.49 6 29.82 1.25
HOT Male 7 30.75 1.00 NS 7 30.18 1.07 NS
Female 6 27.71 0.93 6 26.88 0.83
HFM Male 7 14.79 0.45 ** 7 14.79 0.45 NS
Female 6 13.21 1.19 6 12.07 1.64
GWM Male 7 17 0.33 NS 7 16.07 1.13 NS
Female 6 14.24 0.40 6 12.42 1.72
GBOC Male 7 24.08 0.48 NS 7 23.23 0.92 NS
Female 6 21.49 0.48 6 20.47 0.82
GBJP Male 7 32.19 0.73 NS 7 32.19 0.73 NS
Female 6 30.22 0.46 6 29.56 1.34
GMB Male 7 43.50 0.88 NS 7 42.78 1.33 NS
Female 6 40.63 0.51 6 37.85 4.09
VOLUME Male 7 32.64 0.81 NS 7 31.49 0.87 NS
Female 6 28.27 0.84 6 25.44 5.49
AREA Male 7 365.82 18.6 ** 7 349.50 30.49 *
Female 6 322.032 2.25 6 316.83 8.34
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: NS, none significant.

*

p < 0.05

**

p < 0.01.

TABLE 2.

Measurement values of the mandible of British shorthair and Scottish fold cats (mm).

British shorthair Scottish fold
Gender N Mean Std. deviation p N Mean Std. deviation p
TLM Male 7 66.69 1.16 NS 7 66.26 1.56 NS
Female 6 63.33 0.70 6 62.19 1.29
PCD Male 7 65.20 0.78 * 7 65.34 1.45 *
Female 6 57.20 12.59 6 56.44 1.93
CAP Male 7 63.36 0.70 NS 7 62.15 1.77 **
Female 6 61.01 0.47 6 60.40 0.40
CBC Male 7 58.36 0.59 * 7 57.79 1.24 NS
Female 6 53.12 1.31 6 52.45 1.08
CAC Male 7 56.34 0.64 NS 7 55.47 1.45 NS
Female 6 52.78 1.00 6 52.11 1.49
PML Male 7 23.60 0.63 * 7 22.88 1.33 NS
Female 6 20.54 1.50 6 19.88 2.15
MML Male 7 11.17 0.81 NS 7 10.60 0.70 NS
Female 6 8.84 0.73 6 8.178 0.94
LPP Male 7 15.29 0.71 NS 7 14.58 1.64 NS
Female 6 13.09 1.33 6 12.25 2.54
CML Male 7 34.15 0.91 NS 7 33.01 2.04 **
Female 6 31.85 0.68 6 31.35 0.62
RAH Male 7 32.78 1.01 NS 7 32.06 1.44 NS
Female 6 30.44 0.63 6 29.44 1.46
MDM Male 7 15.25 0.82 NS 7 14.25 1.61 NS
Female 6 13.03 1.05 6 12.54 1.02
MHP Male 7 14.54 0.46 NS 7 13.69 1.31 NS
Female 6 13.16 0.38 6 12.33 1.41
ABC Male 7 60.51 1.44 NS 7 60.79 1.41 NS
Female 6 56.65 1.05 6 55.65 2.47
PAD Male 7 61.25 1.29 NS 7 61.09 2.21 NS
Female 6 56.96 1.18 6 55.81 1.63
MWC Male 7 15.80 0.57 NS 7 15.09 1.05 NS
Female 6 13.41 0.93 6 12.91 1.44
MWM Male 7 25.61 1.04 NS 7 24.18 1.74 NS
Female 6 23.00 1.58 6 21.49 0.97
MBC Male 7 52.42 1.27 NS 7 52.42 1.27 NS
Female 6 50.45 0.74 6 50.95 3.69
VOLUME Male 7 10.32 0.56 NS 7 9.75 1.48 *
Female 6 8.50 0.73 6 7.83 0.64
AREA Male 7 68.15 0.85 NS 7 67.30 1.29 NS
Female 6 63.99 0.71 6 63.16 1.43
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: NS, none significant.

*

p < 0.05.

**

p < 0.01.

TABLE 3.

Topographic measurements of the skull and mandible of British shorthair cats (mm).

British shorthair Scottish fold
Gender N Mean Std. deviation p N Mean Std. deviation p
T1 Male 7 5.05 0.17 NS 7 4.62 0.40 NS
Female 6 3.82 0.26 6 3.62 0.40
T2 Male 7 7.11 0.11 NS 7 7.03 0.17 NS
Female 6 6.70 0.16 6 6.48 0.23
T3 Male 7 4.20 0.08 * 7 4.13 0.15 NS
Female 6 3.55 0.25 6 3.42 0.27
T4 Male 7 31.56 1.95 * 7 27.16 10.78 NS
Female 6 26.61 0.60 6 25.94 1.50
T5 Male 7 25.03 0.33 NS 7 24.03 1.27 NS
Female 6 23.3 0.32 6 22.46 1.30
T6 Male 7 76.16 0.64 NS 7 75.30 1.55 NS
Female 6 73.83 1.25 6 72.65 1.46
T7 Male 7 56.04 0.57 NS 7 54.63 1.92 NS
Female 6 54.21 0.31 6 53.18 1.44
T8 Male 7 10.63 0.27 NS 7 9.98 0.90 NS
Female 6 9.06 0.09 6 8.04 1.09
T9 Male 7 4.8 0.29 NS 7 4.52 0.52 NS
Female 6 4.13 0.19 6 3.89 0.47
T10 Male 7 14.37 0.33 NS 7 13.25 1.59 NS
Female 6 12.77 0.18 6 11.94 1.08
T11 Male 7 15.42 0.28 NS 7 14.42 1.37 NS
Female 6 13.33 0.23 6 12.66 1.11
T12 Male 7 25.22 0.57 NS 7 24.32 1.25 *
Female 6 23.24 0.43 6 31.98 24.12
T13 Male 7 44.38 0.78 NS 7 42.95 1.89 *
Female 6 42.03 0.86 6 40.71 0.67
T14 Male 7 5.39 0.31 NS 7 4.96 0.54 NS
Female 6 3.83 0.24 6 3.58 0.30
T15 Male 7 8.00 0.32 NS 7 7.72 0.56 NS
Female 6 6.40 0.37 6 6.26 0.43
T16 Male 7 7.67 0.36 * 7 7.15 0.84 **
Female 6 6.12 0.10 6 5.99 0.15
T17 Male 7 5.80 0.30 * 7 5.56 0.41 *
Female 6 5.12 0.08 6 5.06 0.09
T18 Male 7 5.88 0.15 NS 7 5.61 0.44 NS
Female 6 5.25 0.34 6 4.97 0.55
T19 Male 7 5.16 0.12 * 7 5.03 0.26 *
Female 6 4.34 0.32 6 4.00 0.77
T20 Male 7 6.48 0.28 NS 7 5.94 0.60 **
Female 6 5.31 0.25 6 4.31 1.19
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: NS, none significant.

*

p < 0.05.

**

p < 0.01.

TABLE 4.

Skull indices of British shorthair and Scottish fold cats (mm).

British shorthair Scottish fold
Gender N Mean Std. deviation p N Mean Std. deviation p
SI Male 7 52.10 1.46 NS 7 51.86 2.33 NS
Female 6 50.73 2.23 6 50.90 2.03
FI Male 7 58.72 1.57 NS 7 58.51 2.12 NS
Female 6 56.20 1.55 6 56.56 1.23
FMI Male 7 87.07 3.01 NS 7 92.54 8.15 *
Female 6 92.75 7.81 6 99.94 27.06
FI1 Male 7 228.66 6.38 NS 7 227.43 5.99 **
Female 6 236.08 6.57 6 249.10 20.37
FI2 Male 7 169.48 6.13 * 7 171.15 12.35 NS
Female 6 175.57 3.88 6 173.02 8.30
BI1 Male 7 53.35 1.37 NS 7 52.98 1.56 NS
Female 6 52.14 0.95 6 52.39 1.19
BI2 Male 7 83.49 1.30 NS 7 83.54 1.58 NS
Female 6 85.10 1.38 6 85.32 2.120
PI1 Male 7 96.46 3.36 NS 7 94.72 4.180 NS
Female 6 96.61 4.74 6 92.24 6.121
PI2 Male 7 108.8 1.78 * 7 108.12 2.325 NS
Female 6 116.50 4.62 6 114.18 2.705
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: NS, none significant.

*

p < 0.05.

**

p < 0.01.

4. Discussion

The size and shape of the skull vary more between domestic cats and dogs and wild big cats than in other mammals (Saber and Gummow 2015). Onar and Güneş (2003) stated that skull indices and ratios, among the parameters used to characterize the shape of the skull in dogs and cats, effectively distinguish and define morphological types. Measurements were made on skull and mandible bones with various methods to determine morphological variations in domestic and wild animals (Gordon et al. 2018; İşbilir et al. 2023).

This is the first study to determine the morphometric, volumetric and topographic characteristics of the skull and mandible in adult British shorthair and Scottish fold cats using CT and 3D modelling and to reveal the differences and similarities of these values between sexes.

In our study, the TLS value was determined to be higher in males than females in British shorthair and Scottish fold cats. Although the same value was reported as 8.4 ± 1.5 cm in cats by Saber and Gummow (2015), it was determined as 10.05 ± 0.13 cm in another study conducted on cats (Moselly and Mahdy 2019). According to our study results, the values were found to be higher in cats of the same breed after 3D modelling.

FI1 value was found to be higher in both cat breeds and sexes in our study than the FI value determined in a study conducted on cats (Saber and Gummow 2015). The FI1 result was expressed as 241.01 ± 33.14 in Van cats (Yılmaz and Demircioğlu 2022), and this value was determined to be smaller in all except male Scottish fold cats. In addition, there was no statistical difference between sexes in terms of PI2 value in Van cats (Yılmaz and Demircioğlu 2022). The mean PI2 value reported in Van cats was larger than the subject of our study, all male cats, and smaller than all female cats.

FMI parameter was statistically different between sexes (p < 0.05) in Scottish fold cats, as in Van cats (Yılmaz and Demircioğlu 2022). In a radiographic study on British shorthair, Scottish fold and Van cats, no statistical difference was reported between the three cat breeds in terms of FMI index value (Gündemir, Akcasiz et al. 2023). Our study determined the difference between males and females in Scottish fold cats (p < 0.05).

In a study conducted on Persian cats, the average TLM and RAH parameters were found to be 8.3 ± 1.03 and 3.7 ± 0.59 cm (Monfared 2013). Pitakarnnop et al. (2017) expressed the same values about 6.01 and 2.75 cm in male domestic cats, and 5.74 and 2.61 cm in female domestic cats. In civet cats, the same values were determined as 4.8 and 2.3 cm, respectively (Suri et al. 2018). In our study, it was determined that the TLM value in British shorthair and Scottish fold cats was higher than that of Misk (Suri et al. 2018) and Van cats (Yılmaz and Demircioğlu 2022) and lower than that of Persian cats (Monfared 2013) and Australian domestic cats (Saber et al. 2016). In addition, the RAH parameter was determined to be greater than that of Australian domestic cats (Saber et al. 2016) and Misk cats (Suri et al. 2018) and smaller than that of Persian cats (Monfared 2013) and Eurasian lynx (Dayan et al. 2017). In the study conducted on Van cats, the mandibular volume value was determined as 7.39 ± 0.93 cm3 in males and 5.40 ± 0.49 cm3 in females (Yılmaz and Demircioğlu 2022). In our study, the same value was detected as 9.75 ± 1.48 cm3 in Scottish fold male cats and 7.83 ± 0.64 cm3 in female cats. Similar to Van cats, the volume parameter value had a statistically significant difference between genders in Scottish fold cats (p < 0.01). Although there may be minor differences depending on the age, body weight, height and breed of the cats, the morphometric measurement values obtained were generally determined to be compatible with the literature.

Considering the size of cat skulls, it is a necessity to know the topographic structures of the foramina where local anaesthetic will be applied (Ducic et al. 2024). In the literature, it is possible to encounter the morphometric values of these foramina in individual mammals (Ducic et al. 2024; Monfared 2013; Saber et al. 2016; Barroso et al. 2009). The four dental nerve blocks reported in cats are infraorbital, maxillary, inferior alveolar (mandibular) and middle mental blocks (Shilo‐Benjamini et al. 2022). Morphometric measurements of the foramina, which should be well known for local anaesthesia applications, were examined according to gender in the two cat breeds used in our study.

The infraorbital foramen is an important foramina used to anaesthetize the infraorbital nerve during manipulations of the upper lip, nostril, facial skin, incisors, canines and the first two premolars (İşbilir et al. 2023; O'Morrow 2010; Choudhary et al. 2017). The T2 parameter was reported as 0.94 ± 0.08 cm in Persian cats (Monfared 2013), 0.7 ± 0.2 cm in round‐headed cats, 0.9 ± 0.2 cm in flat‐headed cats (Saber et al. 2016) and 0.62 ± 0.03 cm in domestic shorthair cats (Ducic et al. 2024).

In inferior alveolar (mandibular) nerve block anaesthesia, the location of the mandibular foramen is very important. It may be difficult to palpate the mental foramen in small cats, so the mandibular block is an alternative in such cases (Rochette 2005). In this context, in our study, T9 and T10 parameters were close to the values determined by Barroso et al. (2009) and Ducic et al. (2024) in cats. Although the T9 parameter was found to be close to the values determined in Australian domestic round‐headed cats (Saber et al. 2016) in the two cat breeds used in our study, the same parameter was reported to be higher in Persian cats (Monfared 2013) and Australian domestic flat‐headed cats (Saber et al. 2016). The T2 parameters in British shorthair and Scottish fold cats were closer to small, flat‐headed cats (Saber et al. 2016) and domestic shorthaired cats (Ducic et al. 2024), compared to Persian cats (Monfared 2013) and round‐headed cats (Saber et al. 2016).

Anaesthesia through the mental foramen causes sensory loss of the lower incisors, the first three premolar teeth, adjacent bone tissues and the lower lip (İşbilir et al. 2023; Rochette 2005). According to our study results, the T15 parameter was smaller than in Australian domestic round‐headed cats. The same value was close to each other in British shorthair and Scottish fold cats and similar to domestic shorthair cats (Ducic et al. 2024).

The existence of the mandibular canal requires good knowledge of the diastema length. Additionally, diastema has an important place in mandibular fracture surgery (Orassi et al. 2021). In our study, the T16 parameter was determined close to the value presented in domestic shorthair cats (Ducic et al. 2024) and Australian domestic round‐headed cats (Saber et al. 2016), whereas this value was found to be higher in Australian domestic flat‐headed cats (Saber et al. 2016).

Gündemir, Szara Yalin, et al. (2023) reported that British shorthair and Scottish fold cats did not differ in any linear measurement and index parameters in their radiographic studies. In our study results, the differences in different parameters between the sexes in both breeds may be due to the fact that the heads of Scottish fold cats are rounder.

As a result, osteometric values, index parameters and topographic features of the skull and mandible bones of male and female British shorthair and Scottish fold cats were examined using CT and 3D modelling methods. Statistical differences in the data obtained between male and female cats were revealed. The images and data obtained by CT and 3D modelling will be guiding in the diagnosis of various pathological disorders in the skull and mandible bones, in determining the taxonomic location of British shorthair and Scottish fold cats and in detecting morphometric differences between genders. It is also thought that the data will be useful in regional anaesthesia applications in surgery and clinical sciences, veterinary anatomy education and zooarchaeological studies.

Author Contributions

Yeşim Aslan Kanmaz: methodology, writing – review and editing, writing – original draft, data curation. Fatma Işbilir: data curation, writing – review and editing, writing – original draft, conceptualization, validation, methodology. Barış Can Güzel: writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, data curation, conceptualization, investigation, visualization, resources, validation.

Ethics Statement

Siirt University Animal Experiments Local Ethics Committee 29.03.2024/2024‐09 Local Ethics Committee Approval was obtained for this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Aslan Kanmaz, Y. , İşbilir F., and Güzel B. C.. 2025. “Craniometric and Topographic Analysis of British Shorthair and Scottish Fold Cats Using Three‐Dimensional Modelling.” Veterinary Medicine and Science 11, no. 5: 11, e70536. 10.1002/vms3.70536

Funding: This study was supported by Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Adebisi, S. 2009. “Forensic Anthropology in Perspective: The Current Trend.” Journal of Forensic Science 4, no. 1: 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  2. Barroso, R. , Ferreira F., Silv R. M., and Lima E.. 2009. “Morphometric Analysis of the Mandibular Foramen of Cats (Felis catus, Linnaeus 1758) With no Defined Breed.” Bioscience Journal 25, no. 4: 135–142. [Google Scholar]
  3. Choudhary, O. , Kalita P. C., Doley P. J., and Kalita A.. 2017. “Applied Anatomy of the Head Region of the Indian Wild Pig (Sus scrofa) and Its Clinical Value During Regional Anesthesia.” Journal of Animal Research 7, no. 2: 339–344. 10.5958/2277-940X.2017.00049.3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dayan, M. O. , Gürbüz İ., Demiraslan Y., and Özgel Ö.. 2017. “Craniometric Measurements of the Male Eurasian Lynx From Turkey.” American Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences 5, no. 1: 15. [Google Scholar]
  5. Demir, A. , and Altundağ Y.. 2020. “Surgical Treatment of Nictitans Gland Prolapse and Cartilage Eversion Accompanying the Nicti‐Tating Membrane (Third Eyelid) Rotation in Cats.” Polish Journal of Veterinary Sciences 23, no. 4: 627–636. 10.24425/pjvs.2020.135811. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Demircioğlu, I. , and Gezer Ince N.. 2020. “Three‐Dimensional Modelling of Computed Tomography Images of Limb Bones in Gazelles (Gazella subgutturosa).” Anatomia, Histologia, Embryologia 49, no. 6: 695–707. 10.1111/ahe.12564. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ducic, N. , Kovacevic S., Tandir F., et al. 2024. “Craniometric Analysis of a Cat and Clinical Significance in Performing Dental Nerve Blocks.” Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences 12, no. 2: 233–238. 10.17582/journal.aavs/2024/12.2.233.238. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Elbroch, M. 2006. Animal Skulls: A Guide to North American Species. 1st ed. Stackpole Books. [Google Scholar]
  9. Gordon, C. R. , Marchant T. W., Lodzinska J., Schoenebeck J. J., and Schwarz T.. 2018. “Morphological Variation of the Caudal Fossa of Domestic Cat Skulls Assessed With CT and Geometric Morphometrics Analysis.” Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 20, no. 8: 752–758. 10.1177/1098612X17730707. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Gündemir, O. , Duro S., Jashari T., Kahvecioğlu O., Demircioğlu İ., and Mehmeti H.. 2020. “A Study on Morphology and Morphometric Parameters on the Skull of the Bardhoka Autochthonous Sheep Breed in Kosovo.” Anatomia, Histologia, Embryologia 49, no. 3: 365–371. 10.1111/ahe.12538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gündemir, O. , Özkan E., and Mutuş R.. 2020a. “Morphometric Study on the Digital Bones in the Domestic Cattle.” Kafkas Universitesi Veteriner Fakultesi Dergisi 26, no. 1: 75–82. [Google Scholar]
  12. Gundemir, O. , Akcasiz Z. N., Yilmaz O., and Hadžiomerović N.. 2023. “Radiographic Analysis of Skull in Van Cats, British Shorthairs and Scottish Folds.” Anatomia, Histologia, Embryologia 52, no. 3: 512–518. 10.1111/ahe.12909. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gündemir, O. , Szara Yalin E. E., Karabagli M., Mutlu Z., Yilmaz O., and Parés‐Casanova P. M.. 2023. “Examination of Shape Variation of the Skull in British Shorthair Scottish Fold and Van Cats.” Animals 13, no. 4: 614. 10.3390/ani13040614. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. İşbilir, F. , Güzel B. C., Gülaydin A., and Choudhary O. P.. 2023. “Osteometric and Topographic Measurement of the Skull and Mandible of Siirt Colored Mohair Goat With Three‐Dimensional (3D) Modeling Technique.” Folia Morphologica 83, no. 3: 689–699. 10.5603/fm.97504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Jashari, T. , Duro S., Gündemir O., et al. 2022. “Morphology, Morphometry and Some Aspects of Clinical Anatomy in the Skull and Mandible of Sharri Sheep.” Biological 77, no. 2: 423–433. 10.1007/s11756-021-00955y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kobryńczuk, F. , Krasińska M., and Szara T.. 2008. “Sexual Dimorphism in Skulls of the Lowland European Bison, Bison Bonasus Bonasus.” Annales Zoologici Fennici 45: 335–340. 10.5735/086.045.0415. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Konig, H. E. , and Liebich H. G.. 2009. Veterinary Anatomy of Domestic Mammals. Schattauer. [Google Scholar]
  18. Monfared, A. L. 2013. “Anatomy of the Persian Cat's Skull and Its Clinical Value During Regional Anesthesia.” Global Vets 10, no. 5: 551–555. 10.5829/idosi.gv.2013.10.5.72101. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Morone, P. J. , Shah K. J., Hendricks B. K., and Cohen‐Gadol A. A.. 2019. “Virtual, 3‐Dimensional Temporal Bone Model and Its Educational Value for Neurosurgical Trainees.” World Neurosurgery 122: e1412–e1415. 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.11.074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Moselhy, A. A. , and Mahdy E. A.. 2019. “Comparative Three Dimensional Computed Tomography (CT) Scans and Anatomical Investigation of Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and Cat (Felis domestica) Skull.” Slovenian Veterinary Research 56: 365–379. 10.26873/SVR-775-2019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. O'Morrow, C. 2010. “Advanced Dental Local Nerve Block Anesthesia.” Canadian Veterinary Journal 51, no. 12: 1411–1415. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Onar, V. , Pazvant G., Pasicka E., Armutak A., and Alpak H.. 2015. “Byzantine Horse Skeletons of Theodosius Harbour: 2. Withers Height Estimation.” Revue de Medecine Veterinaire 166: 30–42. [Google Scholar]
  23. Onar, V. , and Güneş H.. 2003. “On the Variability of Skull Shape in German Shepherd (Alsatian) Puppies.” Advances in Integrative Anatomy and Evolutionary Biology 272, no. 1: 460–466. 10.1002/ar.a.10052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Orassi, V. , Duda G. N., Heiland M., Fischer H., Rendenbach C., and Checa S.. 2021. “Biomechanical Assessment of the Validity of Sheep as a Preclinical Model for Testing Mandibular Fracture Fixation Devices.” Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 9: 672176. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Parthasarathy, J. 2014. “3D Modeling, Custom Implants and Its Future Perspectives in Craniofacial Surgery.” Annals of Maxillofacial Surgery 4, no. 1: 9–18. 10.4103/2231-0746.133065. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Pitakarnnop, T. , Buddhachat K., Euppayo T., Kriangwanich W., and Nganvongpanit K.. 2017. “Feline (Felis catus) Skull and Pelvic Morphology and Morphometry: Gender‐Related Difference?” Anatomia, Histologia, Embryologia 46, no. 3: 294–303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Prokop, M. 2003. “General Principles of MDCT.” European Journal of Radiology 45: S4–S10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Rochette, J. 2005. “Regional Anesthesia and Analgesia for Oral and Dental Procedures.” Veterinary Clinics of North America. Small Animal Practice 35, no. 4: 1041–1058. 10.1016/j.cvsm.2005.02.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Rooppakhun, S. , Piyasin S., Vatanapatimakul N., Kaewprom Y., and Sitthiseripratip K.. 2011. “Craniometric Study of Thai Skull Based on Three‐Dimensional Computed Tomography (CT) Data.” Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 93, no. 1: 90. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Rubio, R. R. , Di Bonaventura R., Kournoutas I., et al. 2019. “Stereoscopy in Surgical Neuroanatomy: Past, Present, and Future.” Operative Neurosurgery 18: 105–117. 10.1093/ons/opz123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Saber, A. S. M. , Cacec T., Gummow B., and Johns K.. 2016. “Morphometric Studies on the Skull of the Australian Domestic Cat (F. catus) and Its Clinical Implications for Regional Anesthesia.” Journal of Veterinary Anatomy 9, no. 1: 1–24. 10.21608/jva.2016.37445. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Saber, A. S. M. , and Gummow B.. 2015. “Skull Morphometry of the Lion (Panthera leo), Dog (Canis lupus familiaris) and Cat (Felis catus).” Journal of Veterinary Anatomy 8, no. 1: 13–30. 10.21608/jva.2015.44849. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Shilo‐Benjamini, Y. , Letz S., Peery D., Abu Ahmad W., and Bar‐Am Y.. 2022. “Comparison of Three Regional Anaesthetic Techniques for Infraorbital or Maxillary Nerve Block in Cats: A Cadaveric Study.” Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 24, no. 4: 322–327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Suri, S. , Sasan J., and Sarma K.. 2018. “Gross and Morphometrical Studies on Mandible of Civet Cat (Viverricula indica).” International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 7, no. 10: 229–233. 10.20546/ijcmas.2018.710.023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Taylor, D. 1989. The Ultimate Cat Book. Simon and Schuster. [Google Scholar]
  36. Todd, N. B. 1972. “Folded‐Eared Cats: Further Observations.” Carn Genet News 2: 64–65. [Google Scholar]
  37. Yılmaz, B. , and Demircioglu İ.. 2019. “Ceylanlarda (Gazella subgutturosa) Mandibulanın Üç Boyutlu Rekonstrüksiyonu Ve Morfometrik Yapısı: Bir BT Çalışması.” Journal of Research in Veterinary Medicine 38, no. 2: 65–71. 10.30782/jrvm.620868. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Yilmaz, O. , and Demircioğlu I.. 2022. “Examination of the Morphometric Features and Three‐Dimensional Modelling of the Skull in Van Cats by Using Computed Tomographic Images.” Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi 68, no. 3: 213–222. 10.33988/auvfd.775971. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from Veterinary Medicine and Science are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES