Is the assessment of bone age by the Greulich–Pyle method reliable at forensic age estimation for Turkish children?

• Published in: Forensic science international 2007-12, Vol.173 (2), p.146-153
• Main Authors: Büken, Bora, Şafak, Alp Alper, Yazıcı, Burhan, Büken, Erhan, Mayda, Atilla Senih
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Age Determination by Skeleton - methods; Age estimation; Biological and medical sciences; Bone age; Child; Children & youth; Epiphyses - anatomy & histology; Epiphyses - diagnostic imaging; Female; Forensic Anthropology - methods; Forensic medicine; Forensic sciences; General aspects; Girls; G–P method; Hand - anatomy & histology; Hand - diagnostic imaging; Humans; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects); Linear Models; Male; Medical research; Medical sciences; Pathology; Physical growth; Puberty; Pubic hair stage; Public health. Hygiene; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine; Sex Characteristics; Skeletal maturation; Studies; Teenagers; Turkey; Turkish children
• ISSN: 0379-0738; 1872-6283
• DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2007.02.023

Abstract Background Estimation of age is an important task for forensic experts especially in developing countries where birth records are often not well maintained. In this study, we investigated whether or not the Greulich–Pyle (G–P) method is sufficient at forensic age estimation for Turkish children. Methods Plain radiographies of left hands and wrists of 492 (241 (49.0%) female, 251 (51.0%) male) healthy children between 11 and 18 years of age for girls and 11 and 19 years of age for boys were taken. Mean chronological ages (CA) were compared with mean skeletal ages according to G–P atlas for each gender and in the second step the differences those for each age group were determined. The children were Caucasian and had a low-middle socioeconomic status in this study population. The paired sample t test was used to indicate the difference between G–P (mean skeletal age according to G–P atlas) and CA (mean chronological age). In order to indicate the relation Pearson correlation coefficient was used. Modeling the relationship between G–P and CA linear regression was used. The analyses were done under SPSS 11.5. Results The G–P compared to their CA. The CA was 14.52 ± 2.18 S.D. years, S.E.: 0.14 (median: 14.47, range: 11.07–18.92 years) whereas G–P was 15.06 ± 2.31 S.D. years, S.E.: 0.15 (median: 15.00, range: 10–18 years) for girls. The difference between the two parameters was statistically significant ( p < 0.001). The CA was 15.28 ± 2.41 S.D. years, S.E.: 0.15 (median: 15.09, S.E. range 11.13–19.94 years) and G–P was 15.41 ± 2.92 S.D. years, S.E.: 0.18 (median: 15.60, range 9–19 years) for boys. The difference was not statistically significant ( p > 0.05). There was a high correlation (Pearson r = 0.882, p < 0.001) for girls and (Pearson r = 0.900, p < 0.001) for boys. The determination coefficient ( R2 ) is equal to 0.778 for girls and 0.81 for boys. The regression model also tested by ANOVA and it is found significant ( p < 0.01) for both genders. According to age groups G–P was advanced (0.17–1.1 year) almost for all ages and differences were significant at 11, 12, 14, 16 ages for girls. G–P was delayed at 11–14 ages (0.01–0.58 year) but not significant except for 13 years and G–P were significantly advanced in 15–17 ages (0.88–0.98 years) but then delayed in 18–19 years of age (0.02–0.48) for boys. The difference's standard deviation at 12, 13, 15, 16 years of ages for girls and between 12 and 16 and 18 years of ages for boys were more than 1 yea