Biryuk I. G.

SEX AND AGE-RELATED PATTERNS OF METACARPAL BONE GROWTH IN PUBERTAL CHILDREN

---

Show/Download

About the author:

Biryuk I. G.

Heading:

MORPHOLOGY

Type of article:

Scientific article

Annotation:

The study of the patterns of postnatal growth of the hand skeleton is a fundamental task of anthropology and pe diatrics, since the condition of the skeletal system serves as an objective indicator of a child’s biological age. The aim of the present study was to determine the sex- and age-related characteristics of metacarpal bone growth in children aged 12-16 years. The study was based on a retrospective morphometric analysis of 182 radiographs obtained from patients without skeletal system pathology (97 boys and 85 girls). The results confirmed that the pubertal period is characterized by intensive remodeling, specific rates of osteogenesis, and pronounced sexual dimorphism. In girls, the peak of growth activity occurs at 12-13 years, after which a gradual slowdown is observed, and after 15 years a physiological stabilization of hand size takes place. In contrast, in boys active longitudinal growth begins at 13 years, with the highest intensity recorded at 14-15 years. By the age of 16 years, boys demonstrate clear morphometric predominance, exceeding girls in the length of all metacarpal bones. The analysis of bilateral asymmetry revealed minimal differences between the right and left hands (within 0.3-1.2%), indicating the predominance of genetic de termination over functional load. The obtained data correlate with international observations and confirm the con cept of the “pubertal crossover.” Special attention was paid to the 14-15-year age period in boys, when rapid bone elongation may outpace their mineralization, thereby increasing the risk of trauma. These findings support the use of morphometric parameters of the metacarpal bones as reliable markers of biological age in clinical practice and in the planning of physical activity for adolescents.

Tags:

Bibliography:

1. Kalichman L, Malkin I, Seibel MJ, Kobyliansky E, Livshits G. Age-related changes and secular trends in hand bone size. Homo. 2008;59(4):301-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.jchb.2008.05.001.
2. Cole P, Kaufman Y, Hatef DA, Hollier LH Jr. Embryology of the hand and upper extremity. J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20(4):992-5. DOI: 10.1097/SCS. 0b013e3181abb18e.
3. Schmeling A, Reisinger W, Geserick G, Olze A. Age estimation of unaccompanied minors. Part I. General considerations. Forensic Sci Int. 2006;159(1):S61-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.02.017.
4. Cao L, Liu C, Wu TH, Shi L, Wen JX, Guo Z, et al. Hand skeletal features of children and adolescents with different growth statuses and periods. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2024;14(3):2528-2538. DOI: 10.21037/qims-23-26.
5. Perrin J, Geoffroy-Siraudin C, Metzler-Guillemain C. La main: embryologie et principaux mécanismes malformatifs. Chir Main. 2008;27(1):S2-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.main.2008.07.010.
6. Moradi M, Sirous M, Morovatti P. The reliability of skeletal age determination in an Iranian sample using Greulich and Pyle method. Forensic Sci Int. 2012;223(1-3):372.e1-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2012. 08.030.
7. Zlotolow DA, Kozin SH. Hand and Wrist Injuries in the Pediatric Athlete. Clin Sports Med. 2020;39(2):457-479. DOI: 10.1016/j. csm.2020.01.001.
8. Le TB, Hentz VR. Hand and wrist injuries in young athletes. Hand Clin. 2000;16(4):597-607.
9. Barton N. Sports injuries of the hand and wrist. Br J Sports Med. 1997;31(3):191-6. DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.31.3.191.
10. Rettig AC. Athletic injuries of the wrist and hand. Part I: traumatic injuries of the wrist. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31(6):1038-48. DOI: 10.1177/03635465030310060801.
11. Freitas D, Maia J, Beunen G, Lefevre J, Claessens A, Marques A, et al. Skeletal maturity and socio-economic status in Portuguese children and youths: the Madeira growth study. Ann Hum Biol. 2004;31(4):408-20. DOI: 10.1080/03014460410001713050.
12. Grippaudo C, Garcovich D, Volpe G, Lajolo C. Comparative evaluation between cervical vertebral morphology and hand-wrist morphology for skeletal maturation assessment. Minerva Stomatol. 2006;55(5):271-80.
13. Gilsanz V, Ratib O. Hand Bone Age: A Digital Atlas of Skeletal Maturity. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2012. 104 p.
14. Martín Pérez SE, Martín Pérez IM, Molina Suárez R, Vega González JM, García Hernández AM. The Validation of the Tanner-Whitehouse 3 Method for Radiological Bone Assessments in a Pediatric Population from the Canary Islands. Osteology. 2025;5(1):6. DOI: 10.3390/ osteology5010006.
15. Eichelberger DA, Chaouch A, Rousson V, Kakebeeke TH, Caflisch J, Wehrle FM, et al. Secular trends in physical growth, biological maturation, and intelligence in children and adolescents born between 1978 and 1993. Front Public Health. 2024;12:1216164. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1216164.
16. Thodberg HH. Clinical review: An automated method for determination of bone age. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009;94(7):2239-44. DOI: 10.1210/jc.2008-2474.
17. Thodberg HH, van Rijn RR, Tanaka T, Martin DD, Kreiborg S. A paediatric bone index derived by automated radiogrammetry. Osteoporos Int. 2010;21(8):1391-400. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-009-1085-9.
18. Rønne MS, Heidemann M, Schou A, Laursen JO, Bojesen AB, Lylloff L, et al. Tracking of bone mass from childhood to puberty: a 7-year follow-up. The CHAMPS study DK. Osteoporos Int. 2018;29(8):1843-1852. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-018-4556-z.
19. Azlağ Pekince K, Pekince A. Evaluation of the First Metacarpal Bone Head and Distal Radius Bone Architecture Using Fractal Analysis of Adolescent Hand–Wrist Radiographs.Journal of imaging. 2025;11(3):82. DOI: 10.3390/jimaging11030082.

Publication of the article:

«Bulletin of problems biology and medicine», 2026 Issue 1, 180, 417-425 pages, index UDC 611.717.4/.5-053.6:612.65

DOI:

10.29254/2077-4214-2026-1-180-417-425