Search

Much has been written about bite mark comparisons and bite mark analysis. It has largely been written for, and remained within the domain of, the forensic odontologist despite the limited number of such specialists and the even smaller subset who have expertise in this area. For those health professionals who work in the field of clinical forensic medicine, most will not have access to a forensic odontologist. Courts can be reticent about the costs involved in obtaining another expert opinion. For health professionals, who will likely encounter more bite marks in their career than forensic odontologists, the difficulty is knowing what can legitimately be opined about such injuries., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing interest There are no declarations of interest., (Crown Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Aim: To investigate and analyze legal conflicts in forensic dentistry of Ukraine., Patients and Methods: Materials and Methods: A comparative research method for determining the common and distinctive features of the legal regulation of forensic dental expertise as a subcluster in the legislation of Ukraine. The descriptive (monographic) method reveals the problematic aspects of forensic dental examination through the lens of local normative and general normative connotations. The structural-functional research method made it possible to systematize the peculiarities of forensic medical and forensic dental expert activity., Conclusion: Conclusions: The analysis of legal conflicts made it possible to come to the following conclusions, that in Ukraine today there is no specific legal act that would regulate the aspects of performing dental activities. Forensic dental examination in Ukraine, in accordance with the legislation, is an examination of the actions and inactions of the dentist. The adoption of normative legal acts in the field of dental activity and forensic dental examination in Ukraine would make it possible to determine the specifics of establishing facts and circumstances that indicate a violation of the patient's rights.

The study objective is to analyze changes in court practice over a 10-year period (from 2013 to 2022) including the quantitative and qualitative composition of complaints for conducted dental treatment, considering legislative changes in the procedure for the provision of dental service and formalization of the relationship between patient and medical organization. An investigation of 1800 legal cases containing complaints, forensic reports and court decisions allowed to identify tendencies in increasing the number of cases in which patients' demands were fully or partially satisfied, from 54% in 2013-2017 up to 61% in 2018-2022. At the same time, the amounts of payments determined by the courts increased by 14 times. In addition, the percentage of claims against medical organizations providing care under the CHI program increased significantly (from 5% in 2013-2017 to 15% in 2018-2022). A significant impact of changes in normative legal documents regulating the provision of dental care on the qualitative composition of complaints and the issues formed for medical experts by court has been noted.

The discipline of forensic odontology is at a crossroads with the application of bitemark evidence in the court of law. In the last decade, the increase in the number of cases in which bitemarks were the 'smoking gun' to a conviction being appealed and verdicts reverse is alarming and due in a large part to the lack of validated rules and scientific rigor needed to evaluate this evidence objectively. In some cases, post-mortem trauma to human remains has been misinterpreted as human bitemarks. This case report illustrates how bitemarks misinterpreted as human-caused were reevaluated by a computerized imaging analytical method and determined to be consistent with those caused by crayfish scavenging on the remains. Fetal pigs were exposed to crayfish native to the crime scene for a period of 72 h. Crayfish bitemarks on the pigs were compared to marks on the victim and the bite width of the crayfish and found to be statistically the same. These findings led to the exoneration of the convicted individual. Such computer-aided pattern recognition protocols are necessary in traditional forensic identification sciences such as forensic odontology to minimize biased conclusions by extraneous evidence and preconceived assumptions and replace subjective guesswork with sound scientific protocols., (Copyright © 2019 The Author. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The completion of the third molar roots has played an important role in ascertaining whether individuals may be at or over a legal threshold of age, often taken as 18 years. This study demonstrates that root apex completion in the third molar is relatively uninformative regarding the threshold of age 18 years in a sample of 1184 males, where mean age-of-attainment of root apex completion for third mandibular molars is about 19.4 years. This paper also considers the legal age threshold problem for cases where the third mandibular molar is not completely formed, and outlines the use of parametric models and Bayes' factors to evaluate dental evidence in statistically appropriate ways. It attempts to resolve confusion over age-within-stage versus age-of-attainment, likelihood ratios versus other diagnostic tests, and prior odds for a case versus the prior density for an age distribution., (© 2018 American Academy of Forensic Sciences.)

The forensic sciences are a combination of laboratory procedures and physical comparisons of objects associated with victims, perpetrators, and crime scenes. The former is largely university-based protocols adopted by crime labs. The latter is predominantly pattern-matching tools originally developed by police examiners or experts deemed by courts to be relevant to forensic matters. These Court accepted experts bring their reasoning and conclusions into the legal arena. This subgroup of forensics has undergone significant scrutiny in regards to its history of exaggerated claims and weak scientific foundations. This paper addresses the rise and fall of bitemark pattern analysis (i.e. "matching" bitemarks in human flesh to human teeth) in the environment of opposing interests and agendas., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd and Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine. All rights reserved.)

Critics describe forensic dentists' management of bitemark evidence as junk science with poor sensitivity and specificity and state that linkages to a biter are unfounded. Those vocal critics, supported by certain media, characterize odontologists' previous errors as egregious and petition government agencies to render bitemark evidence inadmissible. Odontologists acknowledge that some practitioners have made past mistakes. However, it does not logically follow that the errors of a few identify a systemic failure of bitemark analysis. Scrutiny of the contentious cases shows that most occurred 20 to 40 years ago. Since then, research has been ongoing and more conservative guidelines, standards, and terminology have been adopted so that past errors are no longer reflective of current safeguards. The authors recommend a comprehensive root analysis of problem cases to be used to determine all the factors that contributed to those previous problems. The legal community also shares responsibility for some of the past erroneous convictions. Currently, most proffered bitemark cases referred to odontologists do not reach courts because those forensic dentists dismiss them as unacceptable or insufficient for analysis. Most bitemark evidence cases have been properly managed by odontologists. Bitemark evidence and testimony remain relevant and have made significant contributions in the justice system.

Even though one of the first bite mark cases was Doyle v. State in 1954 (a bitten cheese case), the research has focused on bite marks inflicted in human skin. As published Papers, Case Reports, or Technical Notes can constitute precedents which are relied upon in making the legal arguments and a considerable amount of case law exists in this area, we present a systematic review on bite mark analysis in foodstuffs and inanimate objects and their underlying proofs for validity and judicial acceptance according to Daubert rulings. Results showed that there is vulnerability in these procedures, and it is essential to demand for focus scrutiny on the known error rates when such evidence is presented in trials. These kinds of bite marks are well documented; however, there has been little research in this field knowing that the protocols of analysis and comparison are the responsibility of the forensic odontologists., (© 2017 American Academy of Forensic Sciences.)

Bite marks are rarely seen in forensic medical examinations. In most cases one can easily differentiate whether a bite mark is of human or animal origin due to the arched shape and crushed character of human bite marks. From a forensic point of view it is more interesting whether a dental imprint has been caused by an adult or a child, because children are often abused for a defensive statement. Two cases of bite injuries in children are presented. In the first case, a two-month-old infant was presented by pediatricians. The second case deals with a one-year-old boy who had allegedly been bitten several times by a two-year-old girl in a nursery school. A comparison could be performed between the bite mark impressions on the victim's skin (based on photographic documentation) and dental imprints of single teeth measuring the tooth width on the one hand and the intercanine distance on the other hand with the help of modeling wax plates. This procedure showed good correlations between the bite marks on the victim and the dental status of the biter. Especially for taking bite impressions on children, modeling wax plates are a simple, fast and cheap alternative to dental impression-taking.

After the discovery of skeletonized human remains, the estimation of stature is an important element of the so-called "biological profile". Typically, long bone lengths are used in regression formulas. If long bones are not available, predictions of stature cannot be made. Human skulls are often the subject of forensic osteological examination, sometimes even detached. Therefore, it seems reasonable to search for skull measurements that have a sufficiently good correlation to stature. The aim of the study presented was to measure odonto-stomatological parameters using post-mortem CT data to check whether the esti- mation of stature was possible on this basis. Three classic tooth dimensions (MD, BL, ZL), two diagonal tooth dimensions (MBDL, DBML) first described by Lund and Mörnstad in 1999, two tooth dimensions defined for the first time in this study (MKDO, DKMO), the mesiodistal index (MDS) and also the palatal arch dimensions (arch length, arch width, molar length and dental length) - each at maxilla and mandible - were digitally measured on a total of 799 teeth of 48 virtual 3-D-reconstructed skulls (33 males and 15 females). For most of the aforementioned measurements no statistically significant relation to stature was found. There were positive correlations by Pearson at a significance level of 99 % (2-sided) at three measurements: ZL 15, MKDO 14 and MKDO 15. Positive correlations by Pearson at a significance level of 95 % (2-sided) could be determined for eight measurements, but an applicable regression formula could not be calculated for any of the parameters. Despite a statistical correlation of a few teeth parameters with body length, they must be considered unsuitable for estimating stature.

If patients consider that their orthodontic treatment is a failure, they can claim compensation from their practitioner. Most often, discontented patients call on their third-party liability insurance when they are covered for "legal expenses protection". The patient's insurance company will then get in touch with the practitioner's insurance firm. Three-quarters of all claims are dealt with by the insurance companies. However, if an agreement cannot be reached or if the practitioner's insurance company manages to establish that he/she is not at fault, the patient can apply to the Tribunal de Grande Instance, the French Regional Court. The judge appoints a forensic expert who will examine the patient and follow a very precise procedure involving a dozen different questions. The advice of the forensic expert is therefore very valuable to orthodontists, in particular regarding their duty to inform patients and the importance of the medical file in order to avoid being held accountable following a course of treatment., (© EDP Sciences, SFODF, 2016.)

With increasing incidence of human/animal confrontation and the potential for injury or even death, dentists who choose to work in the forensic sciences may be called upon to utilize their skills and training to render opinions in criminal and civil cases. The authors will show how working in a cooperative environment and combining their skills with those of other experts can achieve the best result.

Bite marks are one component of forensic investigation requiring subjective interpretation for determining unknown source evidence to a putative suspect. Recent scrutiny has lead to questions about the scientific validity of patterned evidence, bite-mark analysis in particular, and its role in judicial proceedings. This article discusses some issues that persist in forensic circles and the difficulties surrounding the field of bite-mark analysis that inherently must employ human subjectivity in its execution of duty.

Unlabelled: This paper offers some guidance on aspects of dento/medico-legal report writing, citing anonymized examples from the author's caseload for clarification of the points made, and also serves to illustrate that sometimes not everything is as straightforward as it may initially appear. It provides reference to the current Civil Procedure Rules in England and Wales and its relevance in report writing., Clinical Relevance: To provide guidance on aspects of dento/medico-legal report writing.

The safe and efficient use of outpatient surgical anesthesia modalities is a significant part of the training and expertise of the oral and maxillofacial surgeon. Although adverse outcomes are rare, they can have considerable traumatic psychological and professional consequences for the surgeon involved. The goal of this article is to develop guidelines to educate the doctor, the second victim, on how to manage a bad outcome and how to navigate through a difficult and arduous process., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A dentist is frequently required to translate dental trauma into monetary value, for example after car accidents and/or work-related injuries. When called to act in this capacity a dentist should combine his/her biological and technical knowledge with a quality medico-legal knowledge. Calculation of economic (pecuniary) damages and non-economic (non-pecuniary) damages requires specific training in medico-legal matters and awareness of the inherent pitfalls. Expert Witnesses registered in Court are usually asked to perform this duty. Nevertheless, European countries have differences regarding dental damage evaluations as well as significant differences in the conditions required for registration as an Expert Witness in Court. A dental Expert Witness has precise responsibilities and is subject to civil or criminal proceedings (depending on the judicial system) if found wanting. In forensic/legal dentistry a medico-legal doctor should not work in isolation from a dentist in dental cases nor is it wise for a dentist to work in the courts without having had specific training regarding judicial disciplines relating to dental damages. In this preliminary work the authors investigate the principal differences in the judicial systems regarding the appointment of Expert Witnesses in both Italian and Croatian courts. The next step will expand this investigation through to European countries in order to marshal knowledge towards harmonization, best practice and a common ground for dental evaluation and claim compensations (in accordance with the Council of Europe Resolution 75 – 7 Compensation for physical injury or death).

The State of Victoria, Australia operates a no-fault accident compensation scheme for the treatment and rehabilitation of those injured on the roads. The administration of the scheme by the Transport Accident Commission includes an in-house clinical panel of clinicians in many disciplines including dentistry who liaise with treating practitioners with the aim of optimizing the outcome for the injured claimants.

Forensic odontologists play an important role locally and nationally in assisting in the identification of the victims of mass fatality incidents, whether natural or human-made. With the recent passage of legislation by Congress identifying dentists as a first-responder resource, knowledge of their expanding role in disaster response is particularly important. The purpose of this article is to describe the forensic dental course being taught at Creighton University School of Dentistry in Omaha, Nebraska, as a model for providing a fundamental education in forensic dentistry and disaster preparedness at the predoctoral dental level. This model is designed to 1) provide students with a broad view of forensic odontology; 2) give them a functional knowledge of the tools and techniques of the modern forensic dentist; 3) provide basic knowledge of their potential role in disaster preparedness and response; and 4) encourage students to pursue further forensic education, become active in national forensic organizations, and get involved in disaster preparedness/response in their home communities following graduation. This article includes lecture topics, demonstrations, and hands-on exercises being used at Creighton to teach students the fundamentals of forensic odontology and disaster preparedness.

Criticism of forensic science, particularly that of bitemark analysis, has become increasingly common in the last decade. Much of the criticism directed at forensic odontology cites cases where miscarriages of justice have occurred when erroneous, over-confident or even false bitemark evidence has been tendered by odontologists. Despite Australia's own experience with such cases in the past, it is postulated that this does not represent the true nature of bitemark analysis as practiced by odontologists today-at least in this country. A review of 119 cases from the last 10 years confirms that 'identification' of a suspect is rarely, if ever, offered, and that conclusions reached by odontologists with respect to bitemark analysis are generally conservative. However, the results of this study also indicate that in a small but significant proportion of cases, there is still some tendency to reach conclusions that could be considered over-confident when considering the overall quality of the physical evidence offered. It is suggested that odontologists should avoid making conclusive remarks regarding the origin of the mark, or the identification of a perpetrator, when such comments are realistically precluded, given the low evidentiary value of the mark itself., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Forensic odontology is the application of dental expertise to legal issues. Commonly, it involves the comparison of dental records of a missing person with a deceased individual for the purposes of forensic personal identification, either in a single case, or as part of the response to an event involving multiple simultaneous fatalities (Disaster Victim Identification, or DVI). It may also involve studies to determine the age of an individual, which may be required as part of a forensic identification process, or for another legal purpose such as the determination of legal responsibility, or in connection with immigration. This report examines the types of radiological information currently used in such forensic studies, and discusses how this information may be accessed or recorded, as well as the techniques that are commonly applied to the radiological data to reach a satisfactory outcome for application in forensic casework., (© 2012 Australian Dental Association.)

The paper deals with the results of medicolegal proceedings involving inappropriate dental care service in both criminal and civil cases. The authors also propose measures for prevention of pitfalls described in the study.

The authors discuss peculiarities of the performance of forensic medical expertise in the cases of unfavourable outcomes of the stomatological treatment. The methodological basis of expert assessment has been created to be applied in situations related to the unfavourable outcomes of dental care.

Four human-to-human bite mark cases in which forensic odontological opinion was found to be in error, or at best deeply divided between experts, are described. These are used to illustrate that there is a growing awareness on the part of the legal profession that bite mark opinions by experts may often be little more than that and that these opinions often cannot be substantiated given the paucity of rigorous scientific evaluation, and will therefore be increasingly challenged. This may not best serve justice and so it is argued that forensic odontology needs to bring more scientific rigour to the evaluation of bite marks. This may threaten to disenfranchise some of the current practitioners and there may be some resistance to change. Forensic odontology is not the only identification science facing such problems, but nevertheless a paradigm shift is predicted in the way bite mark evidence will have to be gathered and evaluated in the future. Some new scientific approaches are described that strive to unravel some of the most basic problems confronting our profession when we attempt to make morphometric comparisons between injuries and the dentition of the biter. A need to capture the actions and consequences of biting in 3D dimensions and simultaneously in real-time is proposed as a path of investigation highly likely to bring some clarity to a confused situation. There is also an urgent need for the ongoing controversy between some of our eminent peers relating to the assumed uniqueness, or otherwise, of the human anterior dentition to be resolved., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This chapter discusses the North American situation, primarily that of the United States judicial system. The United States was established as neither a monarchy nor a theocracy. An unofficial motto of the country has always been - the rule of laws, not of men (or deities). The primary source of law in the United States is the US Constitution. However, each of the 50 states has as its primary source of law a state constitution. In order to become a state, that constitution must conform to US Constitution. In the United States the US Congress, consisting of duly elected Representatives and Senators from the 50 states draft and pass Acts that establish (or direct to be established by officers of the Executive Branch following prescribed administrative procedures) federal law. Each state too, has its own legislative bodies and process for making law. Each state also has its own system of courts. In order to discuss the role of the odontologist within these systems, a primer on how these systems function and interact is crucial. This article discusses the functioning of those systems in relation to the practice of forensic odontology., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

There have been major changes in the approach to and philosophy surrounding bite-mark analyses in recent years. This has resulted in a paradigm shift. Concentrating on three important areas, this review aims to describe the shift in the bite-mark paradigm following recent research studies, the increasing numbers of wrongful convictions that are associated at least in part with bite-mark analyses, and the publication of the United States National Academy of Sciences report entitled Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. The article provides an update on the current context and status of bite-mark analysis. Given the present combination of critical elements, a new level of caution that includes the use of a careful scientific approach to casework, increased reproducibility of conclusions by independent analysts, and hypothesis-driven research is needed. Bitemarks have the ability to exonerate the innocent, protect children from harmful caregivers, and convict the guilty. However, they also may be the enemy of natural justice., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The most frequent errors in dental practice are analysed. Questionnaires, schemes and formula for objective assessment of medical documentation quality in dentistry are proposed.

The medical response to a mass casualty further complicates the hectic environment that follows a terrorist event. In addition to providing treatment, medical professionals may discover items or persons of interest to the pending investigation and should be aware of how to handle these situations appropriately. Examples of case law are provided to illustrate how practitioners' actions could help or hinder prosecution. The traditional forensic role of dental professionals is identifying victims through dental records. In this article, the dental professional is considered a member of a disaster response team, and the differences in responsibilities are highlighted.

The world has experienced a plethora of mass disasters in recent years: acts of terrorism, bombings, earthquakes, hurricanes, typhoons, air crashes and other transportation mishaps, not to mention armed conflicts and migrants drowned in the Mediterranean Sea. In reviewing mass disasters to date, the principal difficulties have not changed: (1) large numbers of humans fragmented, co-mingled, and burned remains; (2) difficulty in determining who was involved in the disaster; (3) acquisition of useful medical and dental records and radiographs; (4) legal, jurisdictional, organisational, and political issues; (5) internal and external documentation and communication problems; (6) application of universal human forensic identification codes. Forensic dentistry plays a major role in victim identification. DNA and dental identification of human remains depends on sufficient availability of ante mortem information, existence of sufficient post mortem material and a comparison or match between ante and post mortem details. Forensic odontology is a specialty with a specific training, and cannot simply be carried out by dentists without such training. Strategies for developing an international forensic odontology capacity and resources are needed for the management of dead bodies following a mass disaster, together with universal guidelines and codes. To this end, Interpol's forms have proved to be a good starting point to meet these requirements.

The potential for a release of dental restoration material or a spontaneous loss of a tooth structure fragment in the course of mastication frequently requires a reliable identification of the lost fragment in order to confirm its origin. The consequences of incidental mechanical injuries -- in view of the presence of dangerous solid fragments -- become particularly important in cases of using a chewing gum. The problem involves distinguishing between the structure of a fragment of restoration or a broken tooth structure and incidental contaminants of chewing gum produced in the process of gum manufacturing. The consequences of mechanical injuries or exposure to potential structural tooth damage in the course of gum chewing provide a subject for numerous litigations against manufacturer of chewing gum and require appropriate identification of the material. The studies were conducted using solid phase infrared spectroscopy in the range of 500-4000 wavelength (cm(-1)) for a quick identification of dental materials used in the dental practice. A database of infrared transmission spectra characteristic of commonly employed dental filling materials was prepared to provide a systemic reference system, useful in controversial interpretation cases.

Bite mark analysis is unquestionably the most difficult, and contentious, work undertaken by forensic odontologists. Each injury must be assessed to determine if it was made by human or animal teeth, if the quality of the evidence allows presentation to a Court of Law, and if the pattern can be reasonably compared to a suspect dentition. Many injuries examined by forensic odontologists do not meet these criteria. A case is presented in which a Victim Statement could be corroborated, with evidence of good probative value.

When examining most traditional sciences a thorough review of the relevant primary literature is usually sufficient to provide the investigator with a sound insight into the discipline. Forensic science differs in this regard, as it is presented in two main arenas: the peer-reviewed forensic journals and the Courts of Law where testimony is proffered. Because of this duality of scientific assessment the following legal review is presented. The review analysed Appellate Court rulings from the United States and identified trends of objections to bitemark testimony. Nine major trends were identified within the cases assessed: bitemark evidence not sufficiently reliable or accepted, arguments regarding the uniqueness of the human dentition, constitutional arguments, inflammatory photographs, inaccuracy of techniques and errors in protocol, use of historical bitemarks and previous biting behavior, funds for defence witnesses and objections pertaining to witness credibility.

Radiology has been used extensively in conventional dental identification, anatomically based identification and identification using maxillofacial skeletal landmarks such as the frontal sinus. Examples of these are well documented in the literature. The purpose of this paper was to revisit the methods where radiographic methods may be used to determine identity using the teeth, the root structures and the frontal sinuses. Additionally suggestions are offered for management of radiography in mass disasters and cases where age determination is required. Computer assisted tomography can be used in the assessment of the degree of fit of a weapon to a wound in cases of blunt force skull injury and plane films can assist in depicting the pattern of post mortem skull fractures. Micro-computed tomography has been used in matching weapons to wounds in sharp-force injury cases. The radiologist's role in cases of civil litigation and fraud is discussed and case examples are given. There are gaps in the science where radiological methods are used. The author offers several suggestions for possible research projects to close some of these gaps.

The task of the forensic dentist is ruled by an obligation to be diligent and prudent. If guidelines should exist which are recognised by the dental forensic community, they will probably be used to judge his work, even if guidelines are only considered as recommendations. The questions to be answered are: who issued these guidelines and are they conform to evidence-based forensic odontology.

The dental literature concerning bitemark methodology is surprisingly thin and sorely lacking in rigorous scientific testing. Contra to this fact, the bitemark legal caselaw is surprisingly strong and is used as a substitute for reliability testing of bite mark identification. In short, the Judiciary and the Prosecutors have loved forensic odontologists. This paper will focus on the author's participation as a Defense expert over the last seven years in over 50 bitemark prosecutions and judicial appeals. This sampling will act as an anecdotal survey of actual bitemark evidence. Certain trends regarding methods and reliability issues of odontologists will be discussed. Several of these cases have been later judicially overturned due to DNA analyses after the defendants were originally convicted. These diagnostic misadventures are being vocally discussed in the US media by news and legal investigators who are asking hard questions. The forensic dentistry community, however, is curiously silent. What actions are necessary by the profession to improve this assault on the 52-year tradition of bite mark identifications in the United States?

Forensic dentistry is the union of two scientific disciplines, both of which are undergoing a renewed scientific rigor. In forensic science the advent of the Daubert ruling has required that judges assess the forensic value of 'expert testimony' ensuring that techniques, methodologies and practices are not only commonly accepted (as was the previous hurdle during the Frye era) but that error rates, assessment of reliability and validation studies are published to support their use. This new degree of judicial scrutiny has been mirrored in the field of dentistry itself, where organisations search and summarise randomised controlled trials in order to recommend best practice and devise clinical care pathways that are firmly grounded in proven scientific research. Despite the obvious drive from both of these professions, forensic dentistry, and in particular the sub-discipline of bitemark analysis, has been remarkably slow to address the obvious deficiencies in the evidence base that underpins this element of forensic science. Reviews of the literature reveal that the vast majority of published works are case reports, and very little primary literature exists. This paper reviews those studies that have assessed aspects of bitemark analysis including the crucial issue of the uniqueness of the human dentition; the application of transparent overlays and the application of statistical probabilities in bitemark conclusions. There are numerous barriers to undertaking high quality research in the field of bitemark analysis, the most important of which is the use of a gold-standard that is acceptable both in terms of diagnostic research but is also forensically relevant. If bitemark analysis is to continue to play a role in the judicial process then there is an urgent need for high quality studies that meet the levels of forensic and scientific scrutiny applied to other disciplines within the criminal justice system. Studies are required to determine not that the human dentition is unique, but how this asserted uniqueness is represented on human skin and other substrates. The error rates associated with the analysis of bitemarks are required on a procedural level as well as an individual practitioner basis and scales and interpretative indices of bitemark severity and forensic significance should be validated and introduced into common use.

The analysis of panoramic radiographs of the jaws for forensic purposes is well established. The dental findings on the radiographs give valuable information concerning the identity and possible age. Panoramic radiographs also depict the zygomatic arches. Pneumatized spaces of the temporal bone's zygomatic arch process are asymptomatic variations, entitled "zygomatic air cell defect" (ZACD). Data on ZACD prevalence might support the current forensic-odontologic practice in the fields of identification and age assessment. The authors analyzed 6 studies subjected to evaluate ZACD on panoramic radiographs. The out-patients were subjected to systematic radiography prior to treatment planning in specialized dental or maxillofacial surgery clinics. The age of the 7870 patients varied between 6 and 97 years. ZACD was found in 169 patients (prevalence: 2.32%; female: 56.12%, male: 43.9%). Most ZACD were unilateral (70%). In these studies no ZACD occurred in children younger than 7 years of age. There was no statistically significant difference concerning ZACD prevalence in the sub-groups of children aged 9 to 13 vs. 14 to 17 years. This review demonstrates the prevalence of ZACD on orthopantomograms. The prevalence of this finding in the investigated children does not differ from the prevalences reported for adults, and is low in general. The presence of ZACD in persons might be valuable for the identification of humans or human remains and for age estimation in addition to other physical and dental findings.

In the era of Daubert and other judicial rulings pertaining to the acceptability of forensic evidence, it is increasingly important that experts are able to testify that their methods have been scientifically tested and that error rates and other factors relating to reliability have been published. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of digitized radiographic comparisons for the purposes of dental identification. Participants with various forensic backgrounds and experience levels were passively recruited to the website. Ten forensic identification cases composed of antemortem and postmortem dental radiographs were supplied to examiners using a bespoke website. Participants responded to the cases on two occasions after a one-month washout interval using the ABFO conclusion levels for forensic identifications. A total of 115 first attempts and 87 matched second attempts were received. Of the total responses, 72% were dentally trained respondents who had completed at least one forensic identification case; of these, 38% were experienced forensic dentists who had completed more than 25 identifications. Data relating to accuracy, intra- and inter-examiner agreement, and the effect of case difficulty are presented. Mean accuracy was 85.5% for all cases, with the experienced forensic dentists obtaining a 91% success rate. The inter-examiner agreement on the negative identification cases was classified as poor. The data suggest that dental identifications resulting from the comparison of postmortem and antemortem radiographs are valid, accurate, and reliable when undertaken by experienced odontologists.

In recent years, several bite mark cases referred to our department could not be adequately analysed due to poor evidence collection. This has highlighted the fact that police officers, forensic pathologists and dental practitioners do not have access to the information required to collect, record, duplicate, store and transport the relevant evidence correctly. This article highlights several case studies in which evidence collection was bungled. A protocol is proposed that should eliminate this problem.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of trained observers to identify altered radiographic images after modifications using an image-editing software. Based on implantology in 10 radiographs, eight panoramic and one linear tomograph were modified while one tomograph was untouched. Implants were placed or removed and bone levels were altered, and seventy dentists were invited to identify these alterations. The results showed that the percentage of the correct answers was 12.5% or 2 identifications per examiner. The rate of false positives in relation to correct answers was at a level of 6:1. We concluded that the professionals have difficulty in identifying altered radiographs after using an image-editing software and that the seriousness of this situation demands that dentists be warned of the dangers of the use and abuse of this technology.

Quantitative measures of the importance of evidence such as the "likelihood ratio" have become increasingly popular in the courtroom. These measures have been used by expert witnesses formally to describe their certainty about a piece of evidence. These measures are commonly interpreted as the amount by which the evidence should revise the opinion of guilt, and thereby summarize the importance of a particular piece of evidence. Unlike DNA evidence, quantitative measures have not been widely used by forensic dentists to describe their certainty when testifying about bitemark evidence. There is, however, no inherent reason why they should not be used to evaluate bitemarks. The purpose of this paper is to describe the likelihood ratio as it might be applied to bitemark evidence. We use a simple bitemark example to define the likelihood ratio, its application, and interpretation. In particular we describe how the jury interprets the likelihood ratio from a Bayesian perspective when evaluating the impact of the evidence on the odds that the accused is guilty. We describe how the dentist would calculate the likelihood ratio based on frequentist interpretations. We also illustrate some of the limitations of the likelihood ratio, and show how those limitations apply to bitemark evidence. We conclude that the quality of bitemark evidence cannot be adequately summarized by the likelihood ratio, and argue that its application in this setting may be more misleading than helpful.