| Literature DB >> 35281159 |
Jijin Mekkadath Jayakrishnan1, Jagat Reddy1, R B Vinod Kumar2.
Abstract
Forensic odontology and anthropology play an important role in the identification of humans/victims in mass disasters (accidents and earthquakes) and criminal cases (homicide, rape and suicide) even if less available human remains or samples. Forensic also helps in the identification of age, sex, stature estimation and race identification using photographs, bite marks, lip prints, palatal rugae, radiographs and dental DNA identification if antemortem records are available. Here, we review the available methods of human identification. Cone-beam computed tomography of the skull showed superiority in comparison of both facial skeletal and soft tissue to examine the teeth, occlusion, palatal rugae, soft tissue thickness and other unique features. Copyright:Entities:
Keywords: Anthropology; cone-beam computed tomography; forensic; human remains; identification
Year: 2022 PMID: 35281159 PMCID: PMC8859612 DOI: 10.4103/jomfp.jomfp_81_21
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Pathol ISSN: 0973-029X
The American Board of Forensic Odontology recommends that these be limited to the following four conclusions
| Conclusions | Inference |
|---|---|
| Positive identification | Antemortem and postmortem data match in sufficient details, with no unexplainable discrepancies, to establish that they are from the same individual |
| Positive identification | Antemortem and postmortem data have consistent features but, because of the quality of either the postmortem remains or the antemortem evidence, it is not possible to establish identity positively |
| Insufficient evidence | The available information is insufficient to form the basis for a conclusion |
| Exclusion | The antemortem and postmortem data are clearly inconsistent |
Methods of human identification
| Photographs |
| Bite mark analysis |
| Cheiloscopy |
| Rugoscopy |
| Radiographs and scans |
| Role of DNA in dental identifications |
A bite mark analysis may have one of the following concluding statements as suggested by Levine and the American Board of Forensic Odontology[11]
| Conclusions | Inference |
|---|---|
| Definitive biter | There is concordance of sufficient distinctive, individual characteristics to confer uniqueness within the population under consideration. There is absence of any unexplainable discrepancies |
| Possible biter | Bite mark shows some degree of specificity to the suspect’s teeth by virtue of a sufficient number of matching points, including some corresponding individual characteristics. There is absence of any unexplainable discrepancies |
| Possible biter | The bite mark and the suspect’s dentition are consistent: Although the suspect’s teeth could have made the bite mark, there are no characteristic matches to be absolutely certain. The similarity is nonspecific or there is similarity of class characteristics. Matching points are general and/or few and there are no incompatible inconsistencies that would serve to exclude the bite mark as having been caused by the suspect |
| Not a biter | The bite mark and the suspect’s dentition are not consistent: Features on the bite mark indicate that the suspect’s teeth have definitely not caused them |