Comparison of the bite mark pattern and intercanine distance between humans and dogs

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

Published Dec 1, 2015
https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-1475.172431
Download
pdf
Statistic

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...
Volume 7, Issue 3, September-December 2015

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

Bina Kashyap
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh
Sanjeev Anand
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh
Sudhakara Reddy
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh
Shruthi Sahukar
Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh
Naga Supriya
Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh
Swetha Pasupuleti
Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh

Abstract

Background: Bite marks show uniqueness due to specific characteristics and arrangement of teeth, but when it comes to bite mark analysis, it is complicated by numerous factors such as animal bite, abuse etc., Humans and pet animals (dog) bite marks analysis is by far the most demanding and complicated part of forensic dentistry. Aim: To analyze and compare bite marks of humans and the pet animals (dog) using indirect method, so as to assess its usefulness and application in forensic odontology. Materials and Methods: 40 samples including 20 humans (10 males and 10 females) and 20 dogs of different breed were included in the study. Bite registration of all the samples were obtained on modeling wax and intercanine distance were measured. Data were analyzed and results were tabulated. Results: Arch size and intercanine distance showed variable differences among humans and on average dogs showed more intercanine distance and arch size. Among dog breeds larger dogs showed larger variables when compared to smaller dogs. Conclusion: Assessment of bite marks evidences made by animals needs further investigation so that it can be a tool to assist the justice system to answer crucial questions.

##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
Bina Kashyap, Sanjeev Anand, Sudhakara Reddy, Shruthi Sahukar, Naga Supriya, & Swetha Pasupuleti. (2015). Comparison of the bite mark pattern and intercanine distance between humans and dogs. Journal of Forensic Dental Sciences, 7(3), 175–179. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-1475.172431
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Schmeling A, Geserick G, Reisinger W, Olze A. Age estimation. Forensic Sci Int 2007;165:178‑81.
  2. Meinl A, Huber CD, Tangl S, Gruber GM, Teschler‑Nicola M, Watzek G. Comparison of the validity of three dental methods for the estimation of age at death. Forensic Sci Int 2008;178:96‑105.
  3. Willems G. A review of the most commonly used dental age estimation techniques. J Forensic Odontostomatol 2001;19:9‑17.
  4. Singhal A, Ramesh V, Balamurali P. A comparative analysis of root dentin transparency with known age. J Forensic Dent Sci 2010;2:18‑21.
  5. Acharya AB, Vimi S. Effectiveness of Bang and Ramm’s formulae in age assessment of Indians from dentin translucency length. Int J Legal Med 2009;123:483‑8.
  6. Aggarwal P, Saxena S, Bansal P. Incremental lines in root cementum of human teeth: An approach to their role in age estimation using polarizing microscopy. Indian J Dent Res 2008;19:326‑30.
  7. Soomer H, Ranta H, Lincoln MJ, Penttilä A, Leibur E. Reliability and validity of eight dental age estimation methods for adults. J Forensic Sci 2003;48:149‑52.
  8. Stein TJ, Corcoran JF. Pararadicular cementum deposition as a criterion for age estimation in human beings. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1994;77:266‑70.
  9. Wittwer‑Backofen U, Gampe J, Vaupel JW. Tooth cementum annulation for age estimation: Results from a large known‑age validation study. Am J Phys Anthropol 2004;123:119‑29.
  10. Bang G, Ramm E. Determination of age in humans from root dentin transparency. Acta Odontol Scand 1970;28:3‑35.
  11. Vasiliadis L, Darling AI, Levers BG. The histology of sclerotic human root dentine. Arch Oral Biol 1983;28:693‑700.
  12. Avadhoot A, Tupkari JV, Alefiya K, Manisha S. Cementum annulations and age determination. J Forensic Dent Sci 2009;12:73‑6.
  13. Charles DK, Condon K, Cheverud JM, Buikstra JE. Cementum annulation and age determination in Homo sapiens. I. Tooth variability and observer error. Am J Phys Anthropol 1986;71:311‑20.
  14. Dias PE, Beaini TL, Melani RF. Age estimation from dental cementum incremental lines and periodontal disease. J Forensic Odontostomatol 2010;28:13‑21.
  15. Condon K, Charles DK, Cheverud JM, Buikstra JE. Cementum annulation and age determination in Homo sapiens. II. Estimates and accuracy. Am J Phys Anthropol 1986;71:321‑30.
  16. Kagerer P, Grupe G. Age‑at‑death diagnosis and determination of life‑history parameters by incremental lines in human dental cementum as an identification aid. Forensic Sci Int 2001;118:75‑82.