The present paper analyses the applicability of the clinically prevalent skeletal age determination method of Tanner and Whitehouse for forensic age estimation in living individuals. For this purpose, the hand X-rays from 48 boys and 44 girls aged 12-16 years were evaluated retrospectively. The minima and maxima, the mean values with their standard deviations as well as the medians with upper and lower quartiles, are presented for the skeletal ages 12-16 years estimated by the TW2 and TW3 methods. In the legally relevant skeletal age group 14-16 years, the differences between the skeletal age and the mean value of the chronological age were between -0.1 and +1.4 years for the TW2 method. For the TW3 method, the differences between the skeletal age and the mean value of the chronological age were between -0.4 and +0.2 years in the relevant age group. Due to the risk of serious overestimations, the TW2 method seems to be unsuitable for forensic age diagnostics. The application of the TW3 method for forensic age estimations can be recommended.

Until final completion of maturation processes at the age of approximately 18 years, determination of the skeletal age of the hand plays a central role in forensic age diagnostics in living persons in criminal proceedings. In this process, assessment of hand radiographs relies primarily on the stage of development of the epiphyseal nuclei, the increase in size of the individual bones and of the hand skeleton as a whole, changes in the shape of the various skeletal elements and ossification of the epiphyseal plates. To achieve this, there are a variety of methodological approaches based on two different fundamental principles. The methods proposed by Greulich and Pyle, Thiemann et al. and Gilsanz and Ratib rank among the so-called atlas techniques, whilst the methods proposed by Tanner et al. and Roche et al. are classified as so-called bone-specific techniques. In order to be applicable in the field of criminal procedure, the methods of estimating the skeletal age of the hand developed with clinical aspects in mind must satisfy the demands of a high degree of estimate accuracy and good reproducibility of the estimated results. In the course of the present study, a study population of 92 persons was used to compare the above-mentioned atlas and bone-specific techniques for determining hand skeleton age in view of these qualitative criteria. Estimate accuracy was studied using Pearson's correlation coefficients, and weighted kappa coefficients were determined for studying the intra-and interobserver agreement of an estimate result. In the inter-method comparison, a basically good agreement was shown between the skeletal ages and the chronological age of the test persons on the one hand and the skeletal age diagnoses of one or of two examiners on the other. No general advantage of the methodological approach of the bone-specific technique was discernible in the course of comparison; in the female gender, particularly, the RUS2 and RUS3 score of the method of Tanner et al. proved unfavourable. For age estimation practice in criminal proceedings, the atlas methods of Greulich and Pyle and Thiemann et al. are particularly recommendable.

As a collection of radiographic standards of the normal hand development with a homogenous degree of maturity of all skeletal elements, the digital atlas of skeletal maturity by Gilsanz and Ratib combines the possibilities of digital imaging with the principle of a conventional atlas method. The present paper analyses the forensic applicability of skeletal age assessment according to Gilsanz and Ratib to age estimation in criminal proceedings. For this, the hand X-rays of 180 children and adolescents aged 10-18 years old were examined retrospectively. For the entire age range, the minima and maxima, the mean values and standard deviations as well as the medians with upper and lower quartiles are specified by sex. For the legally relevant age groups from 14 to 18 years, there is a risk of overestimation of the chronological age of up to 7.2 months in females. The method of Gilsanz and Ratib is therefore only suitable to forensic age estimation in criminal proceedings to a limited extent.

No abstract