Volume 54, Issue 4 pp. 909-914

Uniqueness of the Dentition as Impressed in Human Skin: A Cadaver Model*

Raymond G. Miller D.D.S.

Raymond G. Miller D.D.S.

Laboratory for Forensic Odontology Research, School of Dental Medicine, SUNY at Buffalo, B1 Squire Hall, S. Campus, Buffalo, NY 14214.

Search for more papers by this author
Peter J. Bush B.S.

Peter J. Bush B.S.

Laboratory for Forensic Odontology Research, School of Dental Medicine, SUNY at Buffalo, B1 Squire Hall, S. Campus, Buffalo, NY 14214.

Search for more papers by this author
Robert B. J. Dorion D.D.S.

Robert B. J. Dorion D.D.S.

Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale, Ministère de la Sécurité publique Québec, Édifice Wilfrid-Derome, 1701 rue Parthenais, 12 étage, Montréal, QC H2K 3S7, Canada.

Search for more papers by this author
Mary A. Bush D.D.S.

Mary A. Bush D.D.S.

Laboratory for Forensic Odontology Research, School of Dental Medicine, SUNY at Buffalo, B1 Squire Hall, S. Campus, Buffalo, NY 14214.

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 23 June 2009
Citations: 36
Additional information and reprint requests:
Raymond G. Miller, D.D.S.
Laboratory for Forensic Odontology Research
School of Dental Medicine
SUNY at Buffalo
B1 Squire Hall
S. Campus
Buffalo, NY 14214
E-mail: [email protected]
*

Presented at the 60th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, February 18–23, 2008, in Washington, DC.

Abstract

Abstract: Bitemark interpretation assumes that the human dentition is unique and that its attributes can be accurately transferred to skin. A cadaver model was used to investigate whether the correct biter could be determined from similarly aligned dentitions once the dentitions were impressed in human skin. One-hundred dental stone models, which were measured and determined to be unique, were divided into 10 groups based upon similarities of mal-alignment patterns. One model was randomly selected from each group and bites were produced on unembalmed human cadavers. Metric/angular measurements and hollow volume overlays of the models were compared with the bites made. The percentage of dentitions from each group as well as the 100 dental model population that could not be excluded as the biter was determined. Results showed difficulty distinguishing the biter from individuals with similarly aligned dentitions and in some cases, an incorrect biter appeared better correlated to the bite.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.