Bite Marks Analysis Using Computer Assisted Hand Tracing Overlay Method
International Journal of Medical Toxicology and Forensic Medicine,
Vol. 6 No. 2(Spring) (2016),
15 June 2016
,
Page 83-87
https://doi.org/10.22037/ijmtfm.v6i2(Spring).10594
Abstract
Background: In resent years, crime rate has been increased. The aim of this study was to evaluate the computer assisted hand tracing overlay method for bite mark analysis.
Methods: Impressions of both, maxillary as well as mandibular arches of 50 consenting volunteers were taken and dentition casts were prepared. Tracing by hand was manually done, and computer assisted overlay comparison was carried out.
Results: Out of 2500 cross matches, expected result should have been 50 true positives and 2450 true negatives. In our study there were 38 true positive, 2406 true negatives, 44 false positive and 12 false negative matches in maxillary comparison, 44 true positive, 2424 true negatives, 26 false positive and 6 false negative matches in mandibular comparison and 31 true positive, 2446 true negatives, 4 false positive and 19 false negative matches when complete dentition (maxillary and mandibular) comparison was done. Hence this method showed significantly high false positive and true negative cases.
Conclusion: We conclude that this computer assisted hand tracing overlay method for bite mark analysis helps in arriving at an exclusion rather than inclusion type of identification, owing to its high true negative cases.
- Bite Mark
- Computer Assisted Method
- Bite Mark Analysis
- Hand Tracing Method
How to Cite
References
Pramod KD, SV Srinivasan, Rajesh PP, Bite Mark Evidence, A textbook of Forensic Odontology, Paras Publications; 1998:69-78.
Van der Velden A, Spiessens M, Willems G. Bite mark analysis and comparison using image perception technology. The J Forensic. Odonto-Stomatology. 2006;24(1):14-7.
Sweet D, Pretty IA. A look at forensic dentistry Part 2: teeth as weapons of violence identification of bitemark perpetrators. Br Dent J. 2001;190:415–8.
Hale A. The admissibility of bitemark evidence. Southern Californian Law Review 1978;51(3):309-34.
Sen D, Stimson P. Bitemark. Forensic Dentistry. 2nd ed. CRC Press. 2010:333-352.
Pretty IA and Sweet D. A Paradigm shift in the analysis of bitemarks. Journal of Forensic Sciences International. 2010;38-44.
Hyzer WG, Krauss TC. The bitemark standard reference scale-ABFO No. 2. J Forensic Sci. 1988;33(2):498-506.
Khatri M, Daniel M, Vasudevan-Srinivasan S. A comparative study of overlay generation methods in bite mark analysis. J Forensic Dent Sci. 2013;5(1):16–21.
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.
Maloth S, Ganapathy S. Comparison between five commonly used two dimensional methods of human bite mark overlay production from the dental study casts. Indian J Dent Res. 2011;22:493.
- Abstract Viewed: 824 times
- PDF Downloaded: 635 times