Literature DB >> 9544542

Accuracy of bite mark overlays: a comparison of five common methods to produce exemplars from a suspect's dentition.

D Sweet1, C M Bowers.   

Abstract

Physical comparison of a suspect's teeth to a bite mark injury using hollow volume comparison overlays is a common forensic odontology technique. Several methods are used to record characteristics of the size, shape and position of the teeth and to generate overlays. These include computer-based, radiographic, xerographic and hand-traced methods. Five common overlay production methods were compared using digital images of dental study casts as a reference standard. Area of the biting edges of the anterior teeth and relative rotation of each anterior tooth were measured and compared. The computer-based production method was determined to be the most accurate of those studied. It produced accurate representations of the biting edges of the teeth in an objective manner. The radiographic method was determined to be more accurate than the xerographic method with respect to tooth area measurement. The opposite is true with respect to tooth rotation. Hand-traced methods, from either wax impressions of teeth or directly from study casts, were determined to be inaccurate and subjective. It is recommended that forensic odontologists discontinue the use of hand-traced overlays in bite mark comparison cases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9544542

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Forensic Sci        ISSN: 0022-1198            Impact factor:   1.832


  11 in total

1.  3-D imaging and quantitative comparison of human dentitions and simulated bite marks.

Authors:  S A Blackwell; R V Taylor; I Gordon; C L Ogleby; T Tanijiri; M Yoshino; M R Donald; J G Clement
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2006-01-04       Impact factor: 2.686

2.  Dental superimposition: a pilot study for standardising the method.

Authors:  D De Angelis; C Cattaneo; M Grandi
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2007-09-13       Impact factor: 2.686

3.  Weighing bitemark evidence : A postmodern perspective.

Authors:  Jules A Kieser
Journal:  Forensic Sci Med Pathol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.007

4.  Analysis of bite marks in food stuffs by CBCT 3D-reconstruction.

Authors:  Sachidanand Giri; Anurag Tripathi; Ranjitkumar Patil; Vikram Khanna; Vandana Singh
Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res       Date:  2018-08-27

Review 5.  Identification of a person with the help of bite mark analysis.

Authors:  Anoop K Verma; Sachil Kumar; Sandeep Bhattacharya
Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res       Date:  2013-06-10

6.  Computer-based method of bite mark analysis: A benchmark in forensic dentistry?

Authors:  Nandita Kottieth Pallam; Karen Boaz; Srikant Natrajan; Minu Raj; Nidhi Manaktala; Amitha J Lewis
Journal:  J Forensic Dent Sci       Date:  2016 Jan-Apr

7.  A comparative study of overlay generation methods in bite mark analysis.

Authors:  Mihir Khatri; Mariappan Jonathan Daniel; Subramanian Vasudevan Srinivasan
Journal:  J Forensic Dent Sci       Date:  2013-01

8.  Comparison of the bite mark pattern and intercanine distance between humans and dogs.

Authors:  Bina Kashyap; Sanjeev Anand; Sudhakara Reddy; Shruthi Basavaradhya Sahukar; Naga Supriya; Swetha Pasupuleti
Journal:  J Forensic Dent Sci       Date:  2015 Sep-Dec

9.  Accuracy of bite mark analysis from food substances: A comparative study.

Authors:  M Jonathan Daniel; Ambiga Pazhani
Journal:  J Forensic Dent Sci       Date:  2015 Sep-Dec

10.  Envelopment technique and topographic overlays in bite mark analysis.

Authors:  Parimala Djeapragassam; Mariappan Jonathan Daniel; Subramanian Vasudevan Srinivasan; Koliyan Ramadoss; Vannathan Kumaran Jimsha
Journal:  J Forensic Dent Sci       Date:  2015 Sep-Dec
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.