Osseous Microanatomy and Histochemical Characterization in Species, Gender Determination and Age Estimation

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Jul 25, 2022
https://doi.org/10.18311/jfds/12/3/2020.574
Download
pdf
Statistic

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...
Volume 12, Issue 3, September - December 2020

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Himani Grover
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology and Microbiology, I.T.S. Center for Dental Studies and Research, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad – 201206, Uttar Pradesh
Nikita Gulati
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology and Microbiology, I.T.S. Center for Dental Studies and Research, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad – 201206, Uttar Pradesh
Saurabh Juneja
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology and Microbiology, I.T.S. Center for Dental Studies and Research, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad – 201206, Uttar Pradesh
Devi Charan Shetty
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology and Microbiology, I.T.S. Center for Dental Studies and Research, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad – 201206, Uttar Pradesh

Abstract

Background: Bone is a tissue of particular interest, because the hard tissue of the skeleton is normally well preserved and details of microscopic structure can be seen in specimens many centuries old. The microscopic structure of bone can be utilized for identification of unknown bone samples in forensic odontology. Physical anthropologists may encounter complete or fragmentary specimens of bone in which standard anthropometric methods provide inconclusive or questionable information. If the histological structure of such material could reveal, with reasonable accuracy, details of species, age, and gender, it would be a useful and valuable laboratory tool. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of formalin fixed paraffin embedded sections from biopsied lesions (5 cases each of goat bone, 5 cases of chicken bone specimen, 5 cases of human male bone specimen, 5 cases of human female bone specimen) was done. The variation of the trabeculae by measuring the average width of trabeculae, the average marrow space, and the ratio of the above two through morphometric analysis was assessed. The observational percentage variation amongst the species by number of osteons, osteocytes shape i.e., -spindle, elliptical and round, presence of inflammation was noted. The stroma and hard tissue for Collagen characterization (Special stains)Type, orientation and maturity using Picrosirus stain, Sub intimal fibrosis surrounding the bone using Van Gieson, Percentage of mature and immature bone pattern using Azan stain was analyzed. Result: Chicken bone shows absence of osteons in comparison to human bone with increased number of osteocytes. Goat bone shows plexiform pattern with scattered haversian canals more comparable to human bone architecture. Average human Haversian canal diameter was greater than non-human mammalian species. Azan staining helped in differentiation of mature from immature bone. Picrosirus staining helped in establishing collagen type, orientation and thickness. Sub intimal fibrosis surrounding the bone was checked using Van Gieson staining. Discussion: The complexities of bone tissue and its growth processes are such that misinterpretations of a critical nature can be made if the observer is not well informed on the multitude of basic details dealing with Osteogenesis, remodelling, and comparative histology. Conclusion: Bone histomorphological assessment is an effective method for species identification, gender determination and age estimation by fragmentary osseous remains.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Grover, H. ., Gulati, N. ., Juneja, S., & Shetty, D. C. (2022). Osseous Microanatomy and Histochemical Characterization in Species, Gender Determination and Age Estimation. Journal of Forensic Dental Sciences, 12(3), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.18311/jfds/12/3/2020.574
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Kranioti EF, Michopoulou E, Tsiminikaki K, Bonicelli A, Kalochristianakis M, Xhemali B, Paine RR, GarcÃa-Donas JG. Bone histomorphometry of the clavicle in a forensic sample from Albania. Forensic Sci Int. 2020, 313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110335. PMid:32502740 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110335
  2. Sawada J, Nara T, Fukui J, Dodo Y, Hirata K. Histomorphological species identification of tiny bone fragments from a Paleolithic site in the Northern Japanese Archipelago. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2014; 46:270–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.03.025 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.03.025
  3. Waldorff EI, Christenson KB, Cooney LA, Goldstein SA. Microdamage repair and remodeling requires mechanical loading. J Bone Miner Res. 2010; 25(4):734–45.
  4. Hadjidakis DJ, Androulakis II. Bone remodeling. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006 Dec; 1092:385–96. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1365.035. PMid:17308163 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1365.035
  5. Cho H, Stout SD, Madsen RW, Streeter MA. Populationspecific histological age-estimating method: A model for known African-American and European-American skeletal remains. J Forensic Sci. 2002; 47(1):12–8. https://doi.org/10.1520/JFS15199J. PMid:12064637 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1520/JFS15199J
  6. Britz HM, Thomas CD, Clement JG, Cooper DM. The relation of femoral osteon geometry to age, sex, height and weight. Bone. 2009; 45(1):77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2009.03.654. PMid:19303955 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2009.03.654
  7. Botha D, Steyn M, Lynnerup N. Histological age-at-death estimation in white South Africans using stereology. Int J Legal Med. 2019; 133(6):1957–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-019-02152-8. PMid:31468135 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-019-02152-8
  8. Andronowski JM, Crowder C, Soto Martinez M. Recent advancements in the analysis of bone microstructure: New dimensions in forensic anthropology. Forensic Sci Res. 2018; 3(4):278-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/20961790.2018. 1483294. PMid:30788447. PMCid:PMC6374927
  9. Hillier ML, Bell LS. Differentiating human bone from animal bone: A review of histological methods. J Forensic Sci. 2007; 52(2):249-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00368.x. PMid:17316219 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00368.x
  10. Domenis L, Squadrone S, Marchis D, Abete MC. Osteocyte lacunae features in different chicken bones. Biotechnol Agron Soc Environ. 2009; 13(S):29-32.
  11. Ansari M. Bone tissue regeneration: Biology, strategies and interface studies. Prog Biomater. 2019; 8(4):22-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40204-019-00125-z. PMid:31768895. PMCid:PMC6930319 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40204-019-00125-z
  12. Pal TK, Chakraborty A, Banerjee S. A micro-anatomical comparison of goat jaw cancellous bone with human mandible: Histomorphometric study for implant dentistry. J Int Clin Dent Res Organ. 2014; 6:20-3. https://doi.org/10.4103/22310754.139088
  13. Thompson DD. Age changes in bone mineralization, cortical thickness, and haversian canal area. Calcif Tissue Int. 1980; 31(1):5-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02407161. PMid:6770973 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02407161
  14. Stephenson B. A modified Picro-Sirius Red (PSR) staining procedure with polarization microscopy for identifying collagen in archaeological residues. J. Archaeol. Sci. 201; 61; 235-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2015.06.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2015.06.007
  15. Delannoy Y, Colard T, Cannet C, Mesli V, Hédouin V, Penel G, Ludes B. Characterization of bone diagenesis by histology in forensic contexts: A human taphonomic study. Int J Legal Med. 2018; 132(1):219-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-017-1699-y. PMid:28965197 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-017-1699-y
  16. Udeabor SE, Adisa AO, Orlowska A, Chia P, Sader RA, Ghanaati S. Osteocalcin, Azan and Toluidine blue staining in fibrous dysplasia and ossifying fibroma of the jaws; Alexandria J. Med. 2018; 54(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajme.2018.01.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajme.2018.01.001
  17. Almeida M, Laurent MR, Dubois V, Claessens F, O’Brien CA, Bouillon R, Vanderschueren D, Manolagas SC. Estrogens and androgens in skeletal physiology and pathophysiology. Physiol Rev. 2017; 97(1):135-87. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00033.2015. PMid:27807202. PMCid:PMC5539371 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00033.2015
  18. Seeman E. Clinical review 137: Sexual dimorphism in skeletal size, density, and strength. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2001; 86(10):4576-84. https://doi.org/10.1210/jcem.86.10.7960. PMid:11600506 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1210/jcem.86.10.7960