Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

The uniqueness of the human dentition as forensic evidence: a systematic review on the technological methodology

  • Review Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Legal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The uniqueness of human dentition is routinely approached as identification evidence in forensic odontology. Specifically in bitemark and human identification cases, positive identifications are obtained under the hypothesis that two individuals do not have the same dental features. The present study compiles methodological information from articles on the uniqueness of human dentition to support investigations into the mentioned hypothesis. In April 2014, three electronic library databases (SciELO®, MEDLINE®/PubMed®, and LILACS®) were systematically searched. In parallel, reference lists of relevant studies were also screened. From the obtained articles (n = 1235), 13 full-text articles were considered eligible. They were examined according to the studied parameters: the sample size, the number of examined teeth, the registration technique for data collection, the methods for data analysis, and the study outcomes. Six combinations of studied data were detected: (1) dental shape, size, angulation, and position (n = 1); (2) dental shape, size, and angulation (n = 4); (3) dental shape and size (n = 5); (4) dental angulation and position (n = 2); (5) dental shape and angulation (n = 1); and (6) dental shape (n = 1). The sample size ranged between 10 and 1099 human dentitions. Ten articles examined the six anterior teeth, while three articles examined more teeth. Four articles exclusively addressed three-dimensional (3D) data registration, while six articles used two-dimensional (2D) imaging. In three articles, both imaging registrations were combined. Most articles (n = 9) explored the data using landmark placement. The other articles (n = 4) comprised digital comparison of superimposed dental contours. Although there were large methodological variations within the investigated articles, the uniqueness of human dentition remains unproved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Naether S, Buck U, Campana L, Breitbeck R, Thali M (2012) The examination and identification of bitemarks in foods using 3D scanning and 3D comparison methods. Int J Legal Med 126:89–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Franco A, Thevissen P, Coudyzer W, Develter W, Van de Voorde W, Oyen R, Vandermeulen D, Jacobs R, Willems G (2013) Feasibility and validation of virtual autopsy for dental identification using the Interpol dental codes. J Forensic Leg Med 20:248–254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rosário-Junior AF, Souza PHC, Coudyzer W, Thevissen P, Willems G, Jacobs R (2012) Virtual autopsy in forensic sciences and its applications in the forensic odontology. J Dental Sci 27:5–9

    Google Scholar 

  4. Holtkotter H, Sheets HD, Bush PJ, Bush MA (2013) Effect of systematic dental shape modifications in bitemarks. Forensic Sci Int 228:61–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Clement JG, Blackwell SA (2010) Is current bite mark analysis a misnomer? Forensic Sci Int 201:33–37

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pretty IA (2006) The barriers to achieving an evidence base for bitemark analysis. Forensic Sci Int 159:110–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Avon SL, Victor C, Mayhall JT, Wood RE (2010) Error rates in bite mark analysis in an in vivo animal model. Forensic Sci Int 201:45–55

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. The Innocence Project (1992) Cases where DNA revealed that bite mark analysis led to wrongful arrests and convictions. http://www.innocenceproject.org. Accessed 9 Apr 2014

  9. Sheets HD, Bush PJ, Bush MA (2013) Patterns of variation and match rates of the anterior biting dentition: characteristics of a database of 3-D scanned dentitions. J Forensic Sci 58:60–68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bush MA, Bush PJ, Sheets HD (2011) Statistical evidence for the similarity of the human dentition. J Forensic Sci 56:118–123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bush MA, Bush PJ, Sheets HD (2011) Similarity and match rates of the human dentition in three dimensions: relevance to bitemark analysis. Int J Legal Med 125:779–784

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sheets HD, Bush PJ, Brzozowski C, Nawrocki LA, Ho P, Bush MA (2011) Dental shape match rates in selected and orthodontically treated population in New York state: a two-dimensional study. J Forensic Sci 56:621–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sognnaes RF, Rawson RD, Gratt BM, Nguyen NBT (1982) Computer comparison of bitemark patterns in identical twins. J Am Dent Assoc 105:449–451

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Higgins JPT, Green S (2006) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  15. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (2009) The PRISMA statement. http://www.prisma-statement.org/statement.htm. Accessed 15 Apr 2014.

  16. Blackwell SA, Taylor RV, Gordon I, Ogleby CL, Tanijiri T, Yoshino M, Donald MR, Clement JG (2007) 3-D imaging and quantitative comparison of human dentitions and simulated bite marks. Int J Legal Med 121:9–17

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nambiar P, Bridges TE, Brown KA (1995) Quantitative forensic evaluation of bite marks with the aid of a shape analysis computer program: part 1; the development of “SCIP” and the similarity index. J Forensic Odontostomatol 13:18–25

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nambiar P, Bridges TE, Brown KA (1995) Quantitative forensic evaluation of bite marks with the aid of a shape analysis computer program: part 2; “SCIP” and bite marks in skin and foodstuffs. J Forensic Odontostomatol 13:26–32

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kieser JA, Bernal V, Waddell JN, Dip Tech M, Raju S (2007) The uniqueness of the human anterior dentition: a geometric morphometric analysis. J Forensic Sci 52:671–677

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rawson RD, Ommen RK, Kinard G, Johnson J, Yfantis A (1984) Statistical evidence for the individuality of the human dentition. J Forensic Sci 29:245–253

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tuceryan M, Li F, Blitzer H, Parks ET, Platt JA (2011) A framework for estimating probability of a match in forensic bite mark identification. J Forensic Sci 56:83–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Martin-de las-Heras S, Tafur D (2009) Comparison of simulated human dermal bitemarks possessing three-dimensional attributes to suspect biters using a proprietary three-dimensional comparison. Forensic Sci Int 190:33–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Martin-de-Las-Heras S, Tafur D, Bravo M (2013) A quantitative method for comparing human dentition with tooth marks using three-dimensional technology and geometric morphometric analysis. Acta Odontol Scand. doi:10.3109/00016357.2013.826383

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral Health Sciences - Forensic Dentistry, KU Leuven and Dentistry, University Hospitals Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, Block B, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Ademir Franco, Guy Willems & Patrick Thevissen

  2. Department of Stomatology, School of Health and Biosciences, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil

    Ademir Franco & Paulo Henrique Couto Souza

  3. Belgian Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Leuven, Belgium

    Geertruida E. Bekkering

Authors
  1. Ademir Franco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guy Willems
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paulo Henrique Couto Souza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Geertruida E. Bekkering
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Patrick Thevissen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ademir Franco.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(GIF 54 kb)

High-resolution image (TIFF 15 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Franco, A., Willems, G., Souza, P.H.C. et al. The uniqueness of the human dentition as forensic evidence: a systematic review on the technological methodology. Int J Legal Med 129, 1277–1283 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-014-1109-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-014-1109-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation