Forensic dentistry
BA Programs often involve science or biomedical but can include much more, as long as students have completed the basic prerequisites needed.
This checklist may include fellowships, working with recognized medicolegal death investigation agencies, completing a minimum level of casework and research, and providing testimony in court cases.
[12] The ABFO and the AAFS often hold scientific sessions which offer workshops including identification, civil litigation, age determination, and bite-mark analysis.
[15] Forensic odontology has played a key role in famous criminal cases: In 1692, during the Salem Witch Trials, Rev.
George Burroughs was accused of witchcraft and conspiring with the Devil, with biting his victims supposedly being evidence of his crimes.
These samples along with other models and casts were evaluated using a variety of techniques, including two-dimensional and three-dimensional comparisons, and acetate overlays.
[12] Quebec has a team that is run out of McGill University and they offer a well-established forensic dentistry online course that focuses on human bite-mark evidence.
Using multiple dental impressions in a lineup may enable forensic odontologists to significantly decrease the current bias in matching bite marks to the teeth of a suspect.
[23] The guidelines are intended to prevent potentially useful evidence from being thrown out simply because the forensic odontologist's collection methods were not standardized.
Kouble and Craig used a simplified version of the ABFO scoring guidelines in order to retain accuracy with a larger sample of comparisons.
It was inaugurated in 2015 by a group of experts in Lyon during the Interpol DVI annual meeting, following the inspiration of Emilio Nuzzolese, forensic odontologist from Italy.
[29] Studies have been performed in an attempt to find the simplest, most efficient, and most reliable way of analyzing bite marks and comparing them with one another and with suspects' teeth.
In addition to the location of the bite mark, the type of severity of the injury may give investigators clues as to the mental state of the offender.
[24] While the photocopier-generated technique is sensitive, reliable, and inexpensive, new methods involving digital overlays have proven to be more accurate.
The use of the 2D polyline method entails drawing straight lines between two fixed points in the arch and between incisal edges to indicate the tooth width.
[39] In February 2016, the Texas Forensic Science Commission recommended that bite mark evidence not be used in criminal prosecutions until it had a more firm scientific basis.
The journalists discovered that no rigorous experimentation has been conducted to determine error rates for bite mark comparison, a key part of the scientific method.
[43] Similarly, Roy Brown was convicted of murder due in part to bite-mark evidence, and freed after DNA testing of the saliva left in the bite wounds matched someone else.
[38] Although bite mark analysis has been used in legal proceedings since 1870, it remains a controversial topic due to a variety of factors.
Skin is not a good medium for dental impressions; it is liable to several of irregularities present before the imprint that could cause distortion.
As discussed earlier, there are several methods used to compare bite marks ranging from life-sized photographs to computer-enhanced three-dimensional imaging.
The lack of research has led to the continued use of a few outdated and limited studies to support the validity of bite mark analysis.
In the case of Mississippi vs. Bourne, the DNA of a suspect excluded them from the crime after a dentist claimed the bite marks on the victim matched the defendant's teeth.
[18] Bite marks were a primary source of evidence in the wrongful convictions of Keith Allen Harward,[54][55] Kennedy Brewer[56][57] and Levon Brooks.
Moreover, there is currently no reliable method of sex determination of juvenile or sub-adult remains from cranial or post-cranial skeletal elements since dimorphic traits only become apparent after puberty, and this represents a fundamental problem in forensic investigations.
Due to their hardness, they are highly resistant to taphonomic processes and are much more likely to be recovered than other parts of the fact, the enamel present on teeth is the hardest biological substance in the human body;[65] therefore making them extremely sustainable analytical evidence in a forensic context.
This research has established that human teeth are sexually dimorphic and, although males and females exhibit overlapping dimensions, there are significant differences in mean values.
[76][75][69] The advanced methods which amplify the DNA by using Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) give 100% success in sex determination.
[78] Dental patterns are unique due to the variety of treatments as well as growth for each individual, which creates a benefit in using them for human identification[79] Post-mortem radiographs can be taken at the scene or in a laboratory, the antemortem records are collected from dentists’ existing files and are used for comparison with the radiographs taken from the deceased unknown individual.
Two main techniques are generally employed (both of which require the forensic dentist to take photographs of the deceased person's smile, which can then be compared to the ante-mortem photographs):[85][88] To achieve this, attention must be given to important details, such as:[85][89] It is important to emphasize that each person's smile is unique, just like fingerprints, palatal rugae, and DNA.
