Additional information and reprint requests:
Dr. Valeria Santoro, Ph.D.
Section of Legal Medicine
University of Bari
P.zza Giulio Cesare n.11, 70124 Bari
Italy
E-mail: [email protected]

Read the full text

About

PDF

Tools

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Abstract: This study was based on a morphometric analysis of bite marks starting from the quantitative definition of the anterior teeth by the geometric acquisition of the “injuries,” using bite marks impressed on pig skin and plastic. Each mark was photographed and acquired. A dedicated program automatically supplied the values of the shape factors and the areas of the pattern geometric figures. The values obtained for the homologous samples were compared to the heterologous values. Statistical comparison was made of the sets by linear regression, determining the correlation coefficient and the determination coefficient for each value. Results showed only 4.8% and 2% of overlap between homologous and heterologous values. This study was carried out in attempting to quantitatively define the anterior teeth of the human dentition and the procedure described and the results obtained support the advantage of morphometric studies and computer-aided programs in this study of bite marks.

References

1 Mc Namee AH, Sweet D. Adherence of forensic odontologists to the ABFO guidelines for victim evidence collection. J Forensic Sci 2003; 48(2): 1–4.
Google Scholar
2 Pretty IA. Development and validation of a human bitemark severity and significance scale. J Forensic Sci 2007; 52(3): 687–91.
10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00412.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3 Dubowitz H, Bennet S. Physical abuse and neglect. Lancet 2007; 369: 1891–9.
10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60856-3
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4 Herschaft EE, Alder ME, Ord DK, Rawson RD, Smith ES. Manual of forensic odontology, 4th edn. Lubbock, TX: American Society of Forensic Odontology, 2006.
Google Scholar
5 Sweet D, Lorente JA, Lorente M, Valenzuela A, Villanueva E. An improved method to recover saliva from human skin: the double swab technique. J Forensic Sci 1997; 42: 320–2.
10.1520/JFS14120J
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6 Sweet D, Parhar M, Wood RE. Computer-based production of bitemark overlays. J Forensic Sci 1998; 43: 1046–51.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7 Sweet D, Bowers CM. Accuracy of bitemark overlays: a comparison of five common methods to produce exemplars from a suspect’s dentition. J Forensic Sci 1998; 43: 362–7.
10.1520/JFS16146J
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 Rawson RD, Bell A, Kinard BS, Kinard JG. Radiographic interpretation of contrast-media-enhanced bite marks. J Forensic Sci 1979; 24(4): 898–901.
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 David TJ. Adjunctive use of scanning electron microscopy in bitemark analysis: a 3-D study. J Forensic Sci 1986; 31: 1126–34.
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10 Jakobsen J, Holmen L, Fredebo L, Sejrsen B. Scanning electron microscopy, a useful tool in forensic dental work. Forensic Odontol 1995; 2(13): 36–40.
Google Scholar
11 American Board of Forensic Odontology Inc. Body identification guide-lines. JADA 1994; 125: 1244–54.
PubMed Google Scholar
12 Hyzer WG, Krauss TC. The bite mark standard reference scale—ABFO N°2. J Forensic Sci 1988; 33(2): 498–506.
10.1520/JFS11963J
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13 Bowers CM, Joansen RJ. Photographic evidence protocol: the use of digital imaging methods to rectify angular distortion and create life size reproductions of bitemark evidence. J Forensic Sci 2002; 47(1): 178–85.
10.1520/JFS15221J
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14 Al-Talabani N, Al-Moussawy ND, Baker FA, Mohammed HA. Digital analysis of experimental human bitemarks: application of two new methods. J Forensic Sci 2006; 51(6): 1372–5.
10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00265.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15 Mastronardi G, Introna F, Dellisanti Fabiano M, Venosa A. Personal identification of bank robbers by morphometric image analysis—an Italian experience. In: Lesavich S, editor. Proceedings of the Third International Conference Law and Technology; 2002 Nov 6–7; Cambridge, MA. Alberta, Canada: International Association of Science and Technology for Development, 2002; 108–11.
Google Scholar
16 Bernitz H, Owen JH, van Heerden WFP, Solheim T. An integrated technique for the analysis of skin bite marks. J Forensic Sci 2008; 53(1): 194–8.
10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00618.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17 Kieser JA, Bernal V, Waddell JN, Raju S. The uniqueness of the human anterior dentition: a geometric morphometric analysis. J Forensic Sci 2007; 52(3): 671–7.
10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00403.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18 Bush MA, Raymond GM, Bush PJ, Dorion RBJ. Biomechanical factors in human dermal bitemarks in a cadaver model. J Forensic Sci 2009; 54(1): 167–76.
10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00908.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 Pretty IA. Reliability of bitemark evidence. In: RBJ Dorion, editor. Bitemark evidence. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, 2005; 531–63.
Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume56, Issue1

January 2011

Pages 224-228

Experimental Study of Bite Mark Injuries by Digital Analysis

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Experimental Study of Bite Mark Injuries by Digital Analysis

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information