• Briggs L
• Hart J
• Navis M
• Clayton S
• Boon R

• Atlas
• Biomechanical Phenomena
• Joints
• Occipital Bone
• Research Design

Methods: Three methods were used. Method 1 consisted of digitized photographs downloaded to the Able Image Analyser software program (Ljubljana, Slovenia; http://able.mulabs.com). The perimeters were measured and expressed as square millimeters. Method 2 consisted of a point count method using moulds of the joint surfaces produced by pressing aluminum paper, leaving a clear imprint for analysis. Method 3 consisted of drawing outlines of the molds from method 2 onto transparencies and assessing overlap.

Results: Method 1 showed a moderate correlation of matched articular surfaces between the left C1 superior articulating surface and the left condyle (r = 0.573, P = .01). Method 2 showed moderate correlations between all surface areas that were analyzed. The matched pairs compared were left C1 superior articulating surface and left condyle (r = 0.588, P = .01) and right C1 and right condyle (r = 0.730, P = .001). The contralateral surfaces correlated were left C1 and right C1 (r = 0.596, P = .009) and right condyle and left condyle (r = 0.769, P = .000). Method 3 showed no statistically significant differences between surface areas.

Conclusions: All 3 methods revealed that the articular surfaces of the atlas and corresponding or contralateral condyle for specimens used in this study were not an exact match.

This abstract is reproduced with the permission of the publisher. Free full text is available through PubMed Central; click on the above link.