Forensic Science International 258 (2016) 101.e1–101.

e6

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forensic Science International

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forsciint

Forensic Anthropology Population Data

Estimation of stature by cephalometric facial dimensions in

skeletonized bodies: study from a sample modern Colombians skeletal
remains
Gretel González-Colmenares a,*, César Sanabria Medina b,c, Liliana Carolina Báez a
a
Faculty of Dentistry, University Antonio Nariño, Career 3 E, No. 47A-15, Block 5, Bogotá, Colombia
b
Faculty of Medicine, University Antonio Nariño, Career 3 E, No. 47A-15, Block 1, Bogotá, Colombia
c
Pathology Group, National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, Calle 7 A # 12-61, Bogotá, Colombia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Estimation of stature is an important factor in the identification of the deceased from unknown
Received 12 May 2015 fragmentary and dismembered remains. The skull sometimes is the only remain available for
Received in revised form 9 September 2015 identification. The aim of the present study was to estimate the stature of an individual from cephalo-
Accepted 18 October 2015
facial dimensions. The study was carried out on 54 males and 16 females from the bone collection of the
Available online 25 October 2015
contemporary Colombian population that belongs to the National Institute of Legal Medicine. Ten
cephalo-facial measurements were also made on each subject. The stature of each individual in
Keywords:
centimeters was taken from the registration and/or from the autopsy document. The results indicate that
Forensic anthropology population data
the measurements N-M (p < 0.001) and G-Op, Ba-N, Ma-SN (p < 0.05) are correlated with stature for
Identification
Cephalometric males. The correlation between these measures with stature for females was not significant. However,
Skull the formulae obtained from univariate linear regression analysis using cephalo-facial measurements
Stature showed a greater degree of reliability for estimation of stature in males and females.
Regression models ß 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Colombian population

1. Introduction length and maximum breadth on living males and observed a

In the identification process within medico-legal and anthro-
pological research cases, the estimation of stature is one of the
basic parameters for individualization. The stature of an individual
is genetically predetermined and is an inherent characteristic that
can be evaluated with the help of the skeleton [1,2]. It is known
that there is a close relationship between the stature and the
length of the various bones [2], especially for long bones
[3,4]. However, sometimes only the skull is available for forensic
examination and can be used to predict stature.
In the literature, various authors have reported the use of
cranial cephalometric measurements for estimating the stature
[1,5–11]; Introna et al. [5] measured maximum anterior-posterior
* Corresponding author at: Faculty of Dentistry, Career 3 E, No. 47A-15, Block 5,
Bogotá, Colombia. Tel.: +571 3384960x102; fax: 2221204
E-mail addresses: gretgonzalez@uan.edu.co (G. González-Colmenares),
cesarsanabriam@uan.edu.co, csanabria@medicinalegal.gov.co (C. Sanabria),
libaez@uan.edu.co (L.C. Báez).
significant correlation between skull measurements and skeletal
stature. Chiba and Terazawa [6] took the distance between the
glabella and the external occipital protuberance and length around
the skull circumference through those same points in cadavers.
They [6] proposed regression models for estimation of stature. Patil
and Mody [7] analyzed radiographs of 150 normal, healthy adults.
They derived regression equations for stature using only the
measurement of maximum length of skull, specified as glabella-
opisthocranion. Krishan and Kumar [8] used 16 cephalo-facial
measurements from living male adolescents and established a
positive, strong correlation between measurements and the
stature. Krishan [9] took five cephalo-facial measurements on a
sample of 996 adult males. Krishan found that all of the
measurements correlated significantly with stature. Kalia et al.
[10] used dental and cranial measurements, including combined
mesiodistal width of the six anterior maxillary teeth, anterior-
posterior length of the cranium, and cranial circumference; they
[10] devised regression formulae to estimate stature. Sahni et al.
[11] took seven facial measurements of 300 subjects and proposed
regression models for estimation of skeletal stature from various

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.10.016
0379-0738/ß 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
101.e2 G. González-Colmenares et al. / Forensic Science International 258 (2016) 101.e1–101.e6
combinations of these measurements. Agnihotri et al. [1] analyzed
a sample of 150 young and healthy students to determine stature
from cephalo-facial dimensions and formulate regression models
for this purpose. Giurazza et al. [12] estimated stature from six
measurements of Computed Tomography in 200 Caucasian adult
patients and proposed a formulae by regression analysis for
estimation of stature. Mahalakshmi and David [13] analyzed the
cephalometric landmarks in lateral skull view and their usefulness
in stature determination; 10 linear measurements were subjected
to discriminant function analysis and regression analysis for
stature determination. Collectively, the parameters explained the
variation in stature. Shrestha et al. [4] studied 280 cadavers,
measured five parameters on the skulls, and established regression
models for estimation of stature among males and females.
The stature can be estimated by facial or cranial measurements
[9,11] (including dental measurements [10]), taken individually or
jointly, with different accuracy. The measurements of the cephalic
region have a stronger correlation with stature than those of
facial region using regression analysis [7,13]. This might be a
complementary method when other body parts are not available
[11]. However, Sarangi et al. [14] and Pelin et al. [15] found that
estimated stature from cephalic and facial dimensions is unreliable.
In Colombia, the identification process in fragmentary and
mutilated human remains, specifically in terms of sex, age and
stature, standards of other collections are taken, causing misiden-
tification and legal consequences. The international scientific
consensus [16] shows that the techniques used (discriminant
functions, linear equations, Bayesian inference, etc.) should come
from local population studies to which the body belongs, mostly
due to the existing diversity of population. The observed errors
when classical methods have been tested, developed from white
Americans, in European and Asian samples should also be
considered. Therefore, the aim of this study was to find a
correlation between stature and cephalo-facial measurements,
deriving regression equations for estimating the total stature of the
skeleton in the Colombian mestizo population.
2. Materials and methods
Seventy standardized lateral cephalometric radiographs of the
identified bodies of 54 males and 16 females were selected from
the bone collection of the contemporary Colombian population
that belongs to the National Institute of Legal Medicine. The ages
ranged from 20 to 45 years (as recommended by Krogman and
Iscan [2]) and belonged to individuals who died between 2004 and
2008. These had been identified from medical records and autopsy
reports belonging to the National Institute of Legal Medicine. The
study was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the university
and the National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences
(Ethics approval: 003-2013).
From the radiographs database, those with complete skulls
were selected. Radiographs of subjects who had a history and/or
clinical features suggestive of developmental disorders, osseous
asymmetry, with a history of trauma and surgery of the skull or of
prolonged illness were excluded from the study. These radiographs
were taken on the Siemens X-ray machine with the teeth in centric
occlusion, placing the skull on an artificial substrate that secured it
in the Frankfort Horizontal plane and completely stabilized it in the
anteroposterior and lateral axes.
Cranial measurements were taken in accordance with a
procedure described in the literature [7]. The landmarks used in
the study are detailed in Table 1. The anatomical landmarks were
located by an expert orthodontist and confirmed by two other
investigators. Measurements were performed by a single observer
using a cephalometric protractor. All measurements were repeated
three times and the average of these was used. Concordance Index
Table 1
List of cephalometric landmarks.
Cephalometric landmark
Glabella (G) - the most anterior point in the midsagittal plane between the
superciliary arches.
Basion (Ba) - the lowest point on the anterior rim of the foramen magnum
in the median plane.
Anterior Nasal Spine (ANS) - the anterior tip of the sharp bony process of the
maxilla.
Nasion (N) - the most anterior point on the frontonasal suture in the
midsagittal plane.
Menton (M) - the lowest point on the symphyseal outline of the chin.
Opisthocranion (Op) - the most prominent point of the occipital bone in the
midline.
Mastoidale (Ma) - the lowest point of the mastoid process.
Sella (S) - the mid-point of the Sella turcica.
V1 and V2 - the upper and lower parameters of the frontal sinus cavity,
respectively.
B1 and B2 - the anterior and posterior parameters of the mastoidal width
at the level of the cranial base, respectively.
Frankfort Horizontal plane (FH plane) - the line connecting the Porion with
the Orbitale.
Porion - top of the earpost of the cephalostat.
Orbitale - the lowest point of the bony orbit.
Sella-Nasion plane (SN plane) - the line connecting the Sella with the Nasion.
(CI) compares two observations for reliability in measurements.
The CI between observations was of 0.923 0.956, for all
measurements with a confidence interval of 95%. The cephalo-
facial measurements are defined as follows:
1. Maximum length of skull Glabella (G-Op): measured as the
distance between Glabella (G) and Opisthocranion (Op).
2. Basion to anterior nasal spine (Ba-ANS): linear measurement
from Basion (Ba) to Anterior Nasal Spine (ANS).
3. Upper facial height (N-ANS): defined as linear distance
between Nasion (N) and Anterior Nasal Spine (ANS).
4. Length of cranial base (Ba-N): linear measurement from Basion
(Ba) to Nasion (N).
5. Total face height (N-M): Linear measurement from Nasion (N)
to Menton (M).
6. Frontal sinus height (FsHt): linear distance between V1 and V2.
7. Perpendicular distance from mastoidale to SN plane (Ma-SN):
Perpendicular distance from mastoidale (Ma) to Sella-Nasion
(SN) plane.
8. Perpendicular distance from mastoidale to FH plane (Ma-FH):
Perpendicular distance from mastoidale (Ma) to Frank-furt
Horizontal (FH) plane.
9. Mastoid height from cranial base (MaHt: Ma-B1B2): anterior
and posterior parameter of the mastoidal width at the level of
cranial base, respectively.
10. Mastoid width at the level of cranial base (MaWd: B1-B2)
mastoid width at the level of the cranial base.
The stature of each individual in centimeters was taken from
the registration and/or from the autopsy document. These was
measured as the length of the body from head to heel in
centimeters in supine position with the heel, buttocks, back of
the shoulders and the head in contact with the autopsy table.
SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 15.0)
computer software (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for the
descriptive analysis. Test of normality was carried on each
measurement before opting for a particular parametric or non-
parametric test (Kolmogorov Smirnov). The mean values, stan-
dard deviations (S.D.) and ranges of the measurements were
calculated for all the variables, and the values derived were
compared for both sexes using the Student’s t-test. The Pearson
product moment correlation coefficient (r) between stature and
cephalo-facial measurements was calculated for both sexes.
 G. González-Colmenares et al. / Forensic Science International 258 (2016) 101.e1–101.e6 101.e3

Table 2
Descriptive statistics for stature and cephalo-facial measurements.

Measurements Males Females

Mean S.D. Max Min Mean S.D. Max Min t

G-Op 19.41 0.92 21.66 17.42 18.85 0.94 20.88 17.55 0.04*
Ba-ANS 9.46 0.48 10.59 8.26 9.20 0.40 9.81 8.43 0.04*
N-ANS 5.47 0.26 6.08 4.76 5.11 0.37 5.59 4.18 0.00**
Ba-N 10.69 0.48 11.77 9.34 10.25 0.47 11.43 9.53 0.00**
N-M 12.89 0.60 14.51 11.35 11.78 0.63 12.81 10.79 0.00**
FsHt 3.14 0.39 3.80 1.93 2.98 0.31 3.66 2.35 0.13
Ma-SN 4.65 0.43 5.73 3.53 4.21 0.42 5.18 3.59 0.00**
Ma-FH 3.28 0.37 4.29 2.56 3.26 0.44 4.47 2.60 0.88
Ma Ht 9.96 1.39 12.50 6.90 8.65 1.48 11.1 6.20 0.00**
Ma Wd 1.92 0.21 2.63 1.57 1.85 0.26 2.43 1.51 0.24
Stature
169.92 6.22 185.00 154.00 156.37 9.53 185.00 151.00 0.00**

** p < 0.001.
* p < 0.05.

Univariate regression models were derived to estimate stature
from each cephalo-facial measurement independently among
males and females. The hypothetical regression equation is
represented as: stature (S) = a + bx, where ‘a’ is the regression
coefficient of the dependent variable, i.e. stature, ‘b’ is the
regression coefficient of the independent variable, i.e. any facial
measurement, and ‘x’ is the mean of that particular measurement.
Multiple regression models were derived to estimate stature from
nine combinations of different cephalo-facial measurements for
males and females using the obtained regression and beta
coefficients. Standard errors of estimation (SEE) were calculated.
3. Results
Table 2 presents values of the mean, standard deviation, and the
maxima and minima of cephalo-facial measurements and stature
by sex. The average values for males were greater than those for
females for all measurements. The measurements were signifi-
cantly different, except for frontal sinus height (FsHt), perpendic-
ular distance from the mastoidale to the FH plane (Ma-FH), and
mastoid width at the level of the cranial base (MaWd).
The correlation coefficients between stature and the 10 mea-
surements for males and females of the Colombian sample are
given in Table 3. Analysis of these values showed that the best
parameter was N-M (correlation coefficient r = 0.47; p < 0.001); G-
Op (r = 0.34; p < 0.01), Ba-N (r = 0.32; p < 0.020), Ma-SN (r = 0.30;
p < 0.027) in males. For the other measurements (N-ANS, FsHt,
Ma-FH, MaHt, MaWd), the correlation coefficients were found to
be low, and thus the correlations of cephalo-facial measurements
with stature in men were very poor. Among females, the
co-efficient of correlation was not found to be statistically
significant for stature and cranial measurements.
Table 4 presents linear regression equations that were derived
for each cephalo-facial measurement in the two sexes. There are
separate equations for each measurement. Standard error of
estimation (SEE) for all variables was low, ranging 0.63–4.11 for
males and 0.77–4.31 for females. MaHt exhibits the lowest SEE
(0.63; 0.77), indicating of a higher reliability of cephalo-facial
measurements for stature estimation in females and males,
respectively. The highest value of SEE is exhibited by MaWd
(4.11; 4.35), indicating that it is the least reliable measure for
estimation of stature in both females and males.
Tables 5 and 6 represent multiple regression coefficients,
constant, SEE and correlation coefficients for all the nine combina-
tions (i.e. when 10 variables were considered and so on). SEE ranged
from 5.321 to 5.902 in males and between 2.836 and 4.310 in
females. Table 7 best shows the models explaining variation in
stature among males and females. 10 cephalo-facial measurements
namely G-Op, Ba-ANS, N-ANS, Ba-N, N-M, FsHt, Ma-SN, Ma-FH,
MaHt, MaWd best explained for stature among males. In all, the
10 variables explained around 41.2% variation in stature among
males. Among females eight cephalo-facial variables emerged as
major predictors for stature; these eight predictors explained nearly
81.6% variation in stature among females.
Table 8 presents a comparison of actual stature and stature
estimated from cephalo-facial measurements using regression
analysis, in the sample which was originally used. The difference
between the mean actual and mean estimated stature ranges from
-0.63 to -5.12 cm among males and -0.69 to 4.26 cm among
females.

Table 4
Table 3
Regression equation of stature for each parameter.
Correlation coefficient between stature and various cephalo-facial measurements
in males and females. Measurements Males Females
(in cm)
Measurements Males Females
Regression SEE Regression SEE
r-value p-value r-value p-value p-value equation equation (cm)a
G-Op 0.344 0.013* 0.386 0.140 GOP 124.825 + 2.323x 0.89 121.732 + 1.873x 1.17
BA-ANS 0.283 0.042* -0.215 0.425 BA-ANS 135.744 + 3.610x 1.72 178.147 + (-2.365)x 2.87
N-ANS 0.272 0.052 -0.066 0.807 N-ANS 135.626 + 6.267x 3.14 160.481 + (-0.803)x 3.22
Ba-N 0.323 0.020* -0.355 0.177 Ba-N 125.460 + 4.157x 1.72 190.868 + (-3.364)x 2.36
N-M 0.478 0.000** 0.220 0.935 N-M 106.583 + 4.919x 1.27 154.522 + 0.157x 1.89
FsHt 0.009 0.948 0.051 0.853 FsHt 169.458 + 0.148x 2.24 158.562 + (-0.733)x 3.87
Ma-SN 0.307 0.027* 0.490 0.054 Ma-SN 149.305 + 4.427x 1.94 134.616 + 5.165x 2.45
Ma-FH 0.092 0.518 0.087 0.750 Ma-FH 164.948 + 1.516x 2.33 153.483 + 0.886x 2.72
Ma Ht 0.032 0.819 0.305 0.251 MaHt 168.481 + 0.145x 0.63 148.361 + 0.926x 0.77
Ma Wd 0.118 0.405 0.240 0.371 MaWd 163.258 + 3.455x 4.11 148.921 + 4.022x 4.35
** p < 0.001.
* p < 0.05. a
SEE = standard error of estimate.
101.e4 G. González-Colmenares et al. / Forensic Science International 258 (2016) 101.e1–101.e6

Table 5
Regression coefficients of combination of cephalo-facial measurements using multiple regression analysis in males.

Measurements Combination of variables

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

1 G-Op 0.698 0.685 0.751 0.856 0.882 2.029 2.115 1.897 2.323
2 Ba-ANS 2.999 3.185 3.274 3.104 3.121 1.348 1.478 2.422
3 N-ANS 2.251 3.140 2.302 2.049 2.170 5.741 5.817
4 Ba-N 0.452 -0.008 -0.013 0.192 0.260 0.340
5 N-M 4.002 3.824 4.114 4.591 4.484
6 FsHt -0.548 -0.568 -0.095 0.370
7 Ma-SN 4.892 4.514 2.616
8 Ma-FH -2.400 -2.939
9 Ma Ht -0.603
10 Ma Wd 0.022
Constant 52.013 50.478 46.972 50.297 50.787 82.719 83.028 110.179 124.825
SEE 5.321 5.251 5.256 5.320 5.263 5.764 5.705 5.852 5.902
r-value 0.412 0.400 0.385 0.355 0.355 0.209 0.209 0.151 0.118

Table 6
Regression coefficients of combination of cephalo-facial measurements using multiple regression analysis in females.

Measurements Combination of variables

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

1 G-Op 2.555 2.218 1.647 4.346 4.335 4.071 3.735 3.682 1.837
2 Ba-ANS -4.235 -4.389 -4.011 -5.968 -5.976 -5.460 -7.421 -7.332
3 N-ANS 2.928 3.293 3.614 2.768 2.754 2.109 0.630
4 Ba-N -6.489 -6.092 -6.322 -3.886 -3.928 -4.322
5 N-M -1.457 -1.423 -1.611 -0.880 -0.929
6 FsHt -1.372 -0.657 0.248 -0.338
7 Ma-SN 7.745 7.628 8.251
8 Ma-FH -2.122 -1.392
9 Ma Ht -0.560
10 Ma Wd 1.487
Constant 196.402 191.722 192083 166.431 166.777 163.414 151.030 154.448 121.732
SEE 3.28 2.83 3.28 3 .69 3.50 3.38 3.76 3.62 4.31
r-value 0.824 0.816 0.806 0.598 0.597 0.587 0.444 0.441 0.149

Table 7
Multivariate linear regression models for estimation of stature from cephalo-facial measurements among males and females.

Regression model R2 value SEE (cm)a

Males 52.013 + 0.698xG-OP + 2.999xBA-ANS + 2.251N-ANS + 0.452Ba-N + 4.002N-M - 0.412 5.32

0.548x FsHt + 4.892xMa-SN - 2.400xMa-FH - 0.603xMaHt + 0.22xMa WIDTH
Females 191.722 + 2.218xG-OP - 4.389xBA-ANS + 3.293xN-ANS - 6.092xBa-N - 0.816 2.83
1.423xN-M -0.657xV1-V2 + 7.628xMa-SN -1.392xMa-FH
a
SEE—standard error of estimate.

Table 8
Comparison of mean actual stature (MAS) with mean estimated stature (MES) calculated by using linear regression and multivariate lineal regression.

Estimated stature using regression equations for (in cm): Male Female

Mean estimated Differences between Mean estimated Differences between

stature (MES) means = MAS -MES stature(MES) means = MAS -MES

Univariate linear regression

GOP 170.80 -0.88 157.22 -0,85
BA-ANS 171.64 -1.72 159.24 -2,86
N-ANS 173.06 -3.14 159.59 -3,20
Ba-N 171.64 -1.72 158.73 -2,33
N-M 171.26 -1.34 158.26 -1,85
FsHt 172.16 -2.24 160.24 -3,82
Ma-SN 171.86 -1.94 158.82 -2,39
Ma-FH 172.25 -2.33 159.09 -2,65
MaHt 170.55 -0.63 157.14 -0,69
MaWd 174.03 -4.11 160.72 -4.11
Multivariate linear regressiona 175.04 -5.12 159.20 -4,26
Mean Actual stature (MAS) 169.92 156.37
a
Multivariate linear regression models (Table 7).

4. Discussion well defined, and easy to locate [10]. The cephalometric radiograph
is a good method that helps reproduction and determination of
This study was conducted using skull measurements on radio- these skeletal measurements [7], so making cephalometric radio-
graphs. The anatomical landmarks of the skull are standardized, graphs of a skeleton should be a routine process. Success in the
 G. González-Colmenares et al. / Forensic Science International 258 (2016) 101.e1–101.e6
estimation of stature depends not only on the reliable reproduction
of the radiographs, which must be 1:1, but also on the accuracy of
the cephalo-facial measurements themselves. In some cases, the
skull is the only structure available for determining identification
parameters. In terms of the calculation of stature, it is suggested that
skull bone be considered together with long bones, if available
[7]. The growth of the skull is determined by intrinsic genetic
factors; this has led to the suggestion that there is a relationship
between the length of the skull and the rest of the body [7]. Genetics
and environment may affect skeletal development; thus when
cephalometric measurements are used to determine stature, it
is necessary to develop specific formulae for each population
[12,13,15].
In this study, a significant correlation between various
measurements and stature, NM (0.47), G-Op (0.34), Ba-N (0.32),
Ma-SN (0.30), Ba-ANS (0.28) were found in the sample of males,
but the correlation was not significant for other cranial measure-
ments in this group. In females, the correlations between stature
and cephalometric measurements were not statistically signifi-
cant; the highest correlation coefficient was exhibited by Ma-SN
(0.490) and the lowest by FsHt (0.051). This can be attributed to the
use of a small sample, as suggested by Shrestha et al. [4]. An
investigation by Krishan and Kumar [8] reported that all the
cephalo-facial measurements exhibited significant correlations in
stature (ranging between 0.732 and 0.265). Kalia et al. [10] found
the highest correlation when individual measurements of com-
bined data were plotted against stature and when were added the
odontometric and craniometric parameters. Krishan [9] in a study
observed that all the cephalo-facial anthropometric measurements
show significant correlation with stature; the measurements of the
head exhibit higher than those of the facial measurements
correlation coefficients (ranging between 0.775 and 0.455). Sahni
et al. [11] studied stature estimation by using facial measurements
and found that the correlations of facial measurements in stature
were very poor although significant for some measurements.
Agnihotri et al. [1] found that the correlation coefficients (r) of
cephalo-facial measurements was less than 0.5 in all the cases and
they concluded that the cephalo-facial dimensions are not good
predictors for estimating stature in Indo-Mauritian population.
Giurazza [12] in their study on stature estimation from cranial
measurements taken from CT scans of italians reported correlation
coefficients for Ba-N (Distance from Basion to Nasion) R = 0.53 and
Ba-NB (Distance from Basion to nasal bone) R = 0.50. Mahalakshmi
and David [13] in their study showed that G-Op was found to be a
significant predictor of stature in males and females. Furthermore,
an inverse relationship (negative beta coefficient) was observed
between N-NS, FsHt, Ma-FH in males and between N-ANS, Ba-N,
Ma-SN, Ma-FH, Ma-height in females but none of these factors
significantly influenced stature. These findings were not consistent
with our study. Shrestha et al. [4] observed a correlation
statistically significant between stature and cranial measurements
among males; in the females, a statistically significant correlation
was only observed between stature and maximum cranial length.
The correlation coefficients varied between 0.219 and 0.494.
Regression equations have been reported as the most accurate
and reliable method of estimating stature [2,17], and also the
easiest [2]. In the present study, the univariate regression
equations of the 10 measurements calculated for the determina-
tion of stature show a greater degree of reliability: the standard
error on the estimate (SEE) for the linear regression equations was
0.63–4.11 in males and 0.77–4.35 in females. Thus, NM, G-Op, Ba-N
among males and MaHt, GOP and N-M among females indicate a
high degree of accuracy and reliability in estimation of stature than
the other measurements included in the study. This is further
confirmed by a relatively lower standard error of estimate (SEE)
observed for these measurements for males and females
101.e5
In this study, for multivariate regression models derived for
estimation of stature, the standard error of estimate (SEE) for
different possible combination of variables varied between
5.321 and 5.902 cm in males and between 2.836 and 4.310 cm
in females. Multivariate linear regression models showed a higher
standard error of estimate in stature estimation when compared
with the univariate linear regression models in males; among
females, multivariate linear regression model does not improve the
estimation of stature. In other studies, Chiba and Terazawa [6]
reported a SEE of 6.96 cm in males and 6.71 cm in females in their
study on Japanese cadavers using cranial length and horizontal
circumference of the cranium for estimation of stature. Patil and
Mody [7] found that the estimated stature with the maximum
length of skull (G-Op) was highly reliable using linear regression
equation and reported an SEE of 3.71 and 4.26 in males and
females, respectively. Krishan and Kumar [8] reported SEE of 4.41–
7.21 cm in their study to estimate the stature from cephalo-facial
dimensions in adolescents from North India. Kalia et al. [10] reported
a SEE of 0.18 3.23 cm in their study to investigate the relationship
of stature of a person with the diameter and circumference of a
skull as well as with the combined mesiodistal width of maxillary
anterior teeth in a Mysorean population. Sahni et al. [11] found a SEE
of 3.56 3.70 cm in their study on estimation of stature from seven
facial measurements in Northwest Indians. Giurazza et al. [12]
recorded an absolute error of 3.8 and 3.9 cm taking the length of the
cranial base and distance from Basion to nasal bone, respectively
using single regression equations and multiple regression equations.
In a study by Gupta [18], it has reported a poor correlation between
stature and other parameters among males and females and
concluded that the stature estimation from cephalo-facial dimen-
sions is not reliable. Shrestha et al. [4] reported SEE of 5.69 7.43 cm
and 5.53 7.01 cm using univariate, bivariate and multivariate
linear regression models in a study on the relationship between
stature and craniometric measurements obtained on autopsied
skulls in the modern Nepalese population.
In the present study, significant differences in the cephalomet-
ric measurements G-Op, Ba-ANS, N-ANS, Ba-N, N-M, Ma-SN, and
Ma height between males and females were found. Females
showed smaller measurements than males, including in stature.
These results are consistent with the findings of Patil and Mody [7],
Sahni et al. [11], Agnihotri et al. [1], Giurazza et al. [12], Kalia et al.
[10] and Badam et al. [19]. Generally, a large and robust skull is
that of a male; a small and gracile skull is that of a female [2], which
has also has been corroborated by other studies [6,7]. The mean
stature of males was higher (169.92 cm) than the Japanese males
(164.8 cm) [6] and Nepalese population (166.2 cm) [4]. In case
of the cephalo-facial measurements, the means of majority, the
measurements in the males and females of our population were
found to be lower than Japanese [6], except for N-M, Ma-FH among
males and G-Op, N-ANS,Ma-FH among females.
The sample used in this study was not homogeneous and had a
greater number of male individuals than female. Although the
regression equations were developed independently, they should
be viewed with caution for the group of females, since small
sample sizes may give misleading results [4] or are not sufficiently
representative.
The age range of the sample in this study was 20–45 years, as
recommended by Krogman and Iscan [2], who observed that
measurements on subjects with ages outside this range can be
highly variable [13]. Calculated formulae are applicable to
individuals who have already completed their growth. In sub-
adults, the physical growth of the head and face has little effect
on the determination of stature because the peak growth of the
head and face occurs up to the 13th year of life [7].
The findings of this study suggest that cephalometric measure-
ments can be utilized in estimating stature, only when the skull is
101.e6 G. González-Colmenares et al. / Forensic Science International 258 (2016) 101.e1–101.e6
available for forensic examination; the stature estimation from
cranial dimensions using univariate linear regression models
is more accurate than multivariate regression models, but it is
necessary to test the formulae in another sample.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank to Gustavo Jaimes by statistical analysis of
the data. This project was funded by the University Antonio Nariño
(2012137) and the Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic
Sciences (001-2013).
References
[1] A.K. Agnihotri, S. Kachhwaha, K. Googoolye, A. Allock, Estimation of stature from
cephalo-facial dimensions by regression analysis in Indo-Mauritian population, J.
Forensic Leg. Med. 18 (2011) 167–172.
[2] W.M. Krogman, M.Y. Iscan, The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine, Charles C.
Thomas, Springfield, IL, 1986.
[3] P. Mahakkanukrauh, P. Khanpetch, S. Prasitwattanseree, K. Vichairat, Troy case,
stature estimation from long bone lengths in a Thai population, Forensic Sci. Int.
210 (2011) 279.e1–279.e7.
[4] K. Shrestha, P.K. Shrestha, H. Wasti, T. Kadel, T. Kanchan, K. Krishan, Craniometric
analysis for estimation of stature in Nepalese population—A study on an autopsy
sample, Forensic Sci. Int. 248 (2015) 187.e1–187.e6.
[5] F. Introna Jr., G. Di Vella, S. Petrachi, Determination of height in life using multiple
regression of skull parameters, Boll. Soc. Ital. Biol. Sper. 69 (1993) 153–160.
[6] M. Chiba, K. Terazawa, Estimation of stature from somatometry of skull, Forensic
Sci. Int. 97 (1998) 87–92.
[7] K.R. Patil, R.N. Mody, Determination of sex by discriminant function analysis and
stature by regression analysis: a lateral cephalometric study, Forensic Sci. Int. 147
(2005) 175–180.
[8] K. Krishan, R. Kumar, Determination of stature from cephalo-facial dimensions in
a North Indian population, Leg. Med. 9 (2007) 128–133.
[9] K. Krishan, Estimation of stature from cephalo-facial anthropometry in north
Indian population, Forensic Sci. Int. 181 (2008) 52.e1–52.e6.
[10] S. Kalia, S.K. Shetty, K. Patil, V.G. Mahima, Stature estimation using odontometry
and skull anthropometry, Indian J. Dent. Res. 19 (2) (2008) 150–154.
[11] D. Sahni, Sanjeev, P. Sharma, H. Kaur, A. Aggarwal, Estimation of stature from
facial measurements in northwest Indians, Legal Med. 12 (2010) 23–27.
[12] F. Giurazza, R.E. Del Vescovo, S. Schena, L. Battisti, F. Cazzato, S. Grasso, V. Silvestri,
B.Z. Denaro, Determination of stature from skeletal and skull measurements by CT
scan evaluation, Forensic Sci. Int. 222 (2012) 398.e1–398.e9.
[13] I.P. Mahalakshmi, P.M. David, Determination of sexual dimorphism and stature
using lateral cephalogram, J. Indian Acad. Oral Med. Radiol. 25 (2013) 1–5.
[14] A.K. Sarangi, B. Dadhi, K.K. Mishra, Estimating of stature from adult skull bone,
J. Ind. Acad. Forensic Med. 182 (1981) 24–26.
[15] C. Pelin, R. Zagyapan, C. Yazıcı, A. Kürkçüoglu, Body height estimation from head
and face dimensions: a different method, J.Forensic Sci. 55 (2010) 1326–1330.
[16] E.H. Kimmerle, R.L. Jantz, Variation as evidence: introduction to a symposium on
international human identification, J.Forensic Sci. 53 (2008) 521–523.
[17] M.Y. Iscan, Forensic anthropology of sex and body size, Forensic Sci. Int. 147
(2005) 107–112.
[18] S. Gupta, A study on the reliability of gender and stature estimation from head
circumference, inner canthal distance, inter canine & inter-alar width in orth
Indian populations, JFOS 31 (Suppl. 1) (2013) 153–154.
[19] R.K. Badam, M. Manjunath, M.S. Rani, Determination of sex by discriminant
function. Analysis of lateral radiographic cephalometry, Indian Acad. Oral Med.
Radiol. 23 (3) (2011) 179–183.