A comparative study of overlay generation methods in bite mark analysis

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Jun 1, 2013
https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-1475.114550
Download
pdf
Statistic

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...
Volume 5, Issue 1, January-June 2013

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Mihir Khatri
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Mahatma Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences, (Government of Puducherry Institution), Indira Nagar, Gorimedu, Pondicherry
Mariappan Daniel
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Mahatma Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences, (Government of Puducherry Institution), Indira Nagar, Gorimedu, Pondicherry
Subramanian Srinivasan
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Mahatma Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences, (Government of Puducherry Institution), Indira Nagar, Gorimedu, Pondicherry

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the best method of overlay generation out of the three methods, i.e., manual, photocopying, and computer assisted method. Materials and Methods: Impressions of maxillary and mandibular arches of 25 individuals participating in the study were made and dental study models were prepared. Overlay production was done by manual, photocopying, and computer assisted methods. Finally, the overlays obtained by each method were compared. Results: Kruskal Wallis ANOVA H test was used for the comparison of manual, photocopying, and computer assisted overlay generation methods. H value being highest in case of computer assisted overlays, thus, making it the best method of overlay generation out of the three methods. Conclusion: We conclude that the method of computer assisted overlay generation is the best among the three methods used in our study.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Mihir Khatri, Mariappan Daniel, & Subramanian Srinivasan. (2013). A comparative study of overlay generation methods in bite mark analysis. Journal of Forensic Dental Sciences, 5(1), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-1475.114550
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Aboshi H, Taylor JA, Takei T, Brown KA. Comparison of bitemarks in foodstuffs by computer imaging: A case report. J Forensic Odontostomatol 1994;12:41-4.
  2. Bernitz H, Piper SE, Solheim T, Van Niekerk PJ, Swart TJ. Comparison of bitemarks left in foodstuffs with models of the suspects’ dentitions as a means of identifying a perpetrator. J Forensic Odontostomatol 2000;18:27-31.
  3. Rothwell BR. Bite marks in forensic dentistry: A review of legal, scientific issues. J Am Dent Assoc 1995;126:223-32.
  4. Atsü SS, Gökdemir K, Kedici PS, Ikyaz YY. Bitemarks in forensic odontology. J Forensic Odontostomatol 1998;16:30-4.
  5. Tinoco RL, Martins EC, Daruge E Jr, Daruge E, Prado FB, Caria PH. Dental anomalies and their value in human identification: A case report. J Forensic Odontostomatol 2010;28:39-43.
  6. Robert BJ Dorion. Bitemark evidence. 1st ed. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2005.
  7. Dailey JC. A practical technique for the fabrication of transparent bite mark overlays. J Forensic Sci 1991;36:565-70.
  8. Wood RE, Miller PA, Blenkinsop BR. Image editing and computer assisted bitemark analysis: A case report. J Forensic Odontostomatol 1994;12:30-6.
  9. Sweet D, Parhar M, Wood RE. Computer-based production of bite mark comparison overlays. J Forensic Sci 1998;43:1050-5.
  10. Kouble RF, Craig GT. A comparison between direct and indirect methods available for human bite mark analysis. J Forensic Sci 2004;49:111-8.
  11. Tuceryan M, Li F, Blitzer HL, Parks ET, Platt JA. A framework for estimating probability of a match in forensic bite mark identification. J Forensic Sci 2011;56:S83-9.
  12. Sweet D, Bowers CM. Accuracy of bite mark overlays: A comparison of five common methods to produce exemplars from a suspect’s dentition. J Forensic Sci 1998;43:362-7.
  13. McNamee AH, Sweet D, Pretty I. A comparative reliability analysis of computer-generated bitemark overlays. J Forensic Sci 2005;50:400-5.
  14. Wu Y, Chen X, Sun D. An experimental study on human bitemarks digital analysis and its accuracy. Sheng Wu Yi Xue Gong Cheng Xue Za Zhi 2005;22:918-21.
  15. Maloth S, Ganapathy KS. Comparison between five commonly used two-dimensional methods of human bite mark overlay production from dental study casts. Indian J Dent Res 2011;22:499-505.
  16. Martin-de las Heras S, Valenzuela A, Ogayar C, Valverde AJ, Torres JC. Computer-based production of comparison overlays from 3D-scanned dental casts for bite mark analysis. J Forensic Sci 2005;50:127-33.
  17. Martin-de las Heras S, Valenzuela A, Javier Valverde A, Torres JC, Luna-del-Castillo JD. Effectiveness of comparison overlays generated with Dental Print software in bite mark analysis. J Forensic Sci 2007;52:151-6.
  18. Naether S, Buck U, Campana L, Breitbeck R, Thali M. The examination and identification of bite marks in foods using 3D scanning and 3D comparison methods. Int J Legal Med 2012;126:89-95.