A study of composite restorations as a tool in forensic identification

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

Published Jun 1, 2013
https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-1475.114561
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##

Bahavathi Ananthan Hemasathya
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Tagore Dental College and Hospital, The Tamilnadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai
Sundaresan Balagopal
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Tagore Dental College and Hospital, The Tamilnadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai

Abstract

Introduction: Comparing ante-mortem and post-mortem dental data is a principal method of identification in forensic odontology. Radiographic images of amalgam have been used in dental forensics for identification due to their unique appearance. Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate whether radio-opaque composite restorations have a potential for identification in forensic odontology. Materials and Methods: Thirty typodont mandibular first molar teeth were prepared with Class-II (proximo-occlusal) cavities and restored with a radio-opaque composite (Tetric N-Ceram). Two sets of standardized radiographs were taken from the 30 teeth, keeping the radiological parameters constant. One set of these 30 radiographs was named as SET 1. Ten randomly chosen radiographs from the other set and two other radiographs of Class-II composite restorations in typodont teeth constituted SET 2. Thirty dentally trained examiners were asked to match the 12 radiographic images of SET 2 with those of SET 1. Results: The results show that 15 examiners were able to correctly match all the 12 images. Statistical analysis was done using kappa statistical test. Conclusion: This study shows that, if the post-mortem radiographs are accurate duplicates of ante-mortem radiographs of composite restorations, then the shape of the composite restoration is unique and can be used for identification.

##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
Bahavathi Ananthan Hemasathya, & Sundaresan Balagopal. (2013). A study of composite restorations as a tool in forensic identification. Journal of Forensic Dental Sciences, 5(1), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-1475.114561
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Pretty IA, Sweet D. A look at forensic dentistry–Part 1: The role of teeth in the determination of human identity. Br Dent J 2001;190:359-66.
  2. Keiser-Nielsen S. The final report. Person Identification by Means of their Teeth. Bristol: John Wright and Sons; 1980. p. 54-72.
  3. Jain AK, Chen H. Matching of dental X-ray images for human identification. Pattern Recogn 2004;37:1519-32.
  4. Buchner A. The identification of human remains. Int Dent J 1985;35:307-11.
  5. Phillips VM, Scheepers CF. Comparison between fingerprint and dental concordant characteristics. J Forensic Odontostomatol 1990;8:17-9.
  6. Adams BJ. Establishing personal identification based on specific patterns of missing, filled, and unrestored teeth. J Forensic Sci 2003;48:487-96.
  7. Stimson PG. Radiology in forensic odontology. Dent Radiogr Photogr 1975;48:51-5.
  8. Luntz LL, Luntz P.Antemortem records. Handbook for Dental Identification. Philadelphia: J.B.Lippincott Company; 1973.
  9. Sognnaes RF. Dental evidence in the postmortem identification of Adolf Hitler, Eva Braun, and Martin Bormann. Leg Med Annu 1977;1976:173-235.
  10. Keiser-Nielsen S. Dental identification: Certainty V probability. Forensic Sci 1977;9:87-97.
  11. de Villiers CJ, Phillips VM. Person identification by means of a single unique dental feature. J Forensic Odontostomatol 1998;16:17-9.
  12. Phillips VM. The uniqueness of amalgam restorations for identification. J Forensic Odontostomatol 1983;1:33-8.
  13. Borrman H, Gröndahl HG. Accuracy in establishing identity by means of intraoral radiographs. J Forensic Odontostomatol 1990;8:31-6.
  14. Phillips VM, Stuhlinger M. The discrimination potential of amalgam restorations for identification: Part 1. J Forensic Odontostomatol 2009;27:17-22.
  15. Zondag H, Phillips VM. The discrimination potential of radio-opaque composite restorations for identification: Part 3. J Forensic Odontostomatol 2009;27:27-32.
  16. American Dental Association. Obstacles to the development of a standard for posterior composite resins.Council on Dental Materials, Instruments, and Equipment. J Am Dent Assoc 1989;118:649-51.
  17. Stanford CM, Fan PL, Schoenfeld CM, Knoeppel R, Stanford JW. Radiopacity of light-cured posterior composite resins. J Am Dent Assoc 1987;115:722-4.
  18. Espelid I, Tveit AB, Erickson RL, Keck SC, Glasspoole EA. Radiopacity of restorations and detection of secondary caries. Dent Mater 1991;7:114-7.
  19. Curtis PM Jr, von Fraunhofer JA, Farman AG. The radiographic density of composite restorative resins. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1990;70:226-30.
  20. Goshima T, Goshima Y. Radiographic detection of recurrent carious lesions associated with composite restorations. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1990;70:236-9.
  21. Tveit AB, Espelid I. Radiographic diagnosis of caries and marginal defects in connection with radiopaque composite fillings. Dent Mater 1986;2:159-62.
  22. Bouschlicher MR, Cobb DS, Boyer DB.Radiopacity of compomers, flowable and conventional resin composites for posterior restorations. Oper Dent 1999;24:20-5.
  23. Willems G, Noack MJ, Inokoshi S, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B, Braem M, et al. Radiopacity of composites compared with human enamel and dentine. J Dent 1991;19:362-5.
  24. Hara AT, Serra MC, Haiter-Neto F, Rodrigues AL Jr. Radiopacity of esthetic restorative materials compared with human tooth structure. Am J Dent 2001;14:383-6.
  25. Imperiano MT, Khoury HJ, Pontual MA, Montes MJ, da Silveira MF. Comparative radiopacity of four low viscosity composites. Braz J Oral Sci 2007;6:1278-82.
  26. CruvinelDR, Garcia LF, Casemiro LA, Pardini LC, Pires-de So uza FC. Evaluation of radiopacity and microhardness of composites submitted to artificial aging. Mater Res 2007;10:325-9.
  27. Pretty IA, Smith PW, Edgar WM, Higham SM. The use of quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) to identify composite restorations in forensic examinations. J Forensic Sci 2002;47:831-6.
  28. Benthaus S, DuChesne A, Brinkmann B. A new technique for the postmortem detection of tooth-coloured dental restorations. Int J Legal Med 1998;111:157-9.
  29. Hermanson AS, Bush MA, Miller RG, Bush PJ. Ultraviolet illumination as an adjunctive aid in dental inspection. J Forensic Sci 2008;53:408-11.
  30. Bush MA, Bush PJ, Miller RG. Detection and classification of composite resins in incinerated teeth for forensic purposes. J Forensic Sci 2006;51:636-42.
  31. Turgut MD, Attar N, Onen A. Radiopacity of direct esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 2003;28:508-14.
  32. Salzedas LM, Louzada MJ, de Oliveira Filho AB. Radiopacity of restorative materials using digital images. J Appl Oral Sci 2006;14:147-52.
  33. Wenzel A, Hintze H, Hørsted-Bindslev P. Discrimination between restorative dental materials by their radiopacity measured in film radiographs and digital images. J Forensic Odontostomatol 1998;16:8-13.
  34. Mahn E. The renaissance of a classic: Tetric-N Ceram-a perfect combination of experience and innovation. Available from: htp://www.dental-tribune.com/articles/specialities/cosmetic_ dentistry/162_the_renaissance_of_a_classic_tetric-n_cerama_ perfect_combination_of_experience_and_innovation.html. [Last Cited on 2012 Mar 03].
  35. Dukic W, Delija B, Derossi D, Dadic I. Radiopacity of composite dental materials using a digital X-ray system. Dent Mater J 2012;31:47-53.