## 4 Discussion  
Numerous scholars posit that knowledge relating to the morphometry of the tubero-palato-pterygoid region can be helpful to surgeons during surgical treatment (e.g., LeFort I osteotomy procedure) and is an important consideration in the reduction of intraoperative complications [12; 13]. Data relating to the physical measurements of the pterygomaxillary region is required by clinicians for pterygoid implant placement, for example [13]. The available literature has not yielded other studies that measure the parameters of the tubero-palato-pterygoid region, which excludes opportunities for comparison of results. Alternatively, numerous scholars have analyzed neighboring regions' dimensions. [PERSON] et al. (2020) have drawn attention to the clinical significance of the pterygomaxillary region, noting that this region may have different anatomies and may also lead to specific complications during surgery [14]. Their study illustrates significant gender differences in the distance between the descending palatine canal and the piriform rim. In this regard, the distance was significantly greater in males (\(p\) = 0.037) [14]. The measurements of the medial plate of the pterygoid process of the sphenoid bone, and the thickness of the pterygomaxillary region, demonstrate that these parameters were also longer on either side in females. [PERSON] et al. 's (2020) study indicates dimorphic differences in the measurements of the PMF [15]. Males displayed significantly greater PMF length and width (\(p\) < 0.001). This is confirmed by [PERSON] et al. 's (2020) research, which demonstrates significant morphological differences in the width of structures in this area in both males and in females [16]. In their study on the PMF and PPF, [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2019) indicate a significantly larger PMF area in males [5]. All of the measurements (in the frontal, axial, and sagittal plane) were significantly larger on the right side of the skull. The authors emphasize that knowledge of these anatomical variations will allow surgeons to avoid damage to the neurovascular structures passing through the area. [PERSON] et al. (2017) note a significant variation in the values in the pterygomaxillary region measured across different locations [13]. These were the measured distance between maxillary tuberosity and the most lateral lowest point of the PMF, as well as between the PMF and the greater palatine canal [13]. Some studies have indicated a relationship between certain cranial dimensions [8; 17]. Some studies emphasize the effect these dimensions have on the predisposition of intraoperative complications [8]. It is imperative to have a thorough knowledge of the anatomy involved, given the presence of vital structures in the vicinity of this region that can be injured during surgical treatment. [PERSON] et al., (2013) concluded that the low pterygomaxillary junction thickness and low maxillary tuberosity length may influence the statistically significant risk of pterygoid process features during surgical treatments [8]. [PERSON] et al., (2013) clearly state that gender and skeletal pattern, and craniofacial pattern, may influence the anatomy of the pterygopalatine region [17]. [PERSON] et al. (2020) state that all of the skull's dimorphic parameters (e.g., the distance between maxillary tuberosity and spinous foramen) have a big effect size and are in favor of males [18]. Thus, there is a great deal of research on the nature of morphological variation in structures located in the vicinity of the tubero-palato-pterygoid region. Most of these studies emphasize the importance of knowing the structures in this area in clinical management and during surgical procedures. Because the objective of our study was also to determine if there is enough space in the fusion zone between pterygoid plate and distal maxilla, to place a tubero-pterygoid screw implant, the results suggest that this is possible.