Download Free Medical Analysis of Bitemarks PowerPoint Presentation

Analysis of Bitemarks PowerPoint Presentation

DOWNLOAD MEDICAL POWERPOINT PRESENTATION

About This Presentation

Description : Check out this medical presentation on Cuspids and Canines, which is titled "Analysis of Bitemarks", to know about the element of forensic dentistry – specifically, bitemark analysis.

Tags : Cuspids, Canines, Analysis, Bitemarks, forensic dentistry

Published on : Jul 01, 2021 | Views : 2528 | Downloads : 5

Shareable Url :

Embed Code :

Comment

Transcript

Slide 1-

analysis of bitemarks
Slide 2-

Forensic Dentistry We will focus on a specific element of forensic dentistry – specifically, bitemark analysis Here, a dentist is required to compare the impressions and bruises left in the skin by one person biting another to a suspect’s teeth. However, another important element of forensic dentistry involves the identification of human remains by comparing dental charts to the teeth of the victim This latter component of forensic dentistry has only been around for about 50 or so years. Why?
Slide 3-

WHAT IS A BITEMARK? Bitemark: A physical alteration in a medium caused by the contact of teeth. A representative pattern left in an object or tissue by the dental structures of an animal or human. Cutaneous Human Bitemark: An injury in skin caused by contacting teeth (with or without the lips or tongue) which shows the representational pattern of the oral structures.
Slide 4-

What are limitations to both? What are evidential limitations to bitemarks in the following substances: Wax Fruit Skin Paper Chewing gum
Slide 5-

WHY ARE BITEMARKS USEFUL? We can use bitemarks to carry out bitemark analysis. i.e. a comparison of a known person’s dentition to a patterned injury which appears consistent with a bitemark This type of comparison is used to confirm or eliminate the identity of a suspect in relation to the bitemark.
Slide 6-

A Crash Course in Dentistry 3rd Molar (wisdom tooth) 2nd Molar (12-yr molar) 1st Molar (6-yr molar) 2nd Bicuspid (2nd premolar) 1st Bicuspid (1st premolar) Cuspid (canine/eye tooth) Lateral incisor Central incisor Central incisor Lateral incisor Cuspid (canine/eye tooth) 1st Bicuspid (1st premolar) 2nd Bicuspid (2nd premolar) 1st Molar (6-yr molar) 2nd Molar (12-yr molar) 3rd Molar (wisdom tooth) 3rd Molar (wisdom tooth) 2nd Molar (12-yr molar) 1st Molar (6-yr molar) 2nd Bicuspid (2nd premolar) 1st Bicuspid (1st premolar) Cuspid (canine/eye tooth) Lateral incisor Central incisor Central incisor Lateral incisor Cuspid (canine/eye tooth) 1st Bicuspid (1st premolar) 2nd Bicuspid (2nd premolar) 1st Molar (6-yr molar) 2nd Molar (12-yr molar) 3rd Molar (wisdom tooth) Please note: When you look at the tooth chart, you are looking into a person's mouth with the jaws open. You're facing the person, so their upper right jaw will be on the left of this image.
Slide 7-

Bitemark Analysis In a bitemark comparison, you are looking for and matching unique features between the bitemark and exemplar castings. These features may include: Gaps Rotation (angle) Size of teeth (e.g. width at tip) Width from tooth to tooth (e.g. cuspid to cuspid)
Slide 8-

Evidential Value of Bitemarks By establishing the uniqueness of the biter's teeth and then applying those unique properties to the bite pattern, a degree of confidence relating the biter's teeth to the injury pattern is described. This opinion can range for excluded ( the suspect did not do the biting) to likely and without a doubt (the bite was witnessed and there is not question the suspected biter inflicted the bite). Despite the unique nature of the position and arrangement of the human teeth, it is usually easier to rule out a suspect as a potential biter than it is to include a suspect as a potential biter.
Slide 9-

How are bite marks analyzed? There are over 20 different methods of bitemark analysis. The most common used are: 1.Comparing an acetate overlay manually fabricated from study models to a life size photograph of the wound. 2.Comparing study models to a life size photograph of the wound 3.Comparing an acetate overlay manually fabricated from bites in wax to a photograph of the wound 4.Comparing an acetate overlay manually fabricated from x-rays of radiopaque material placed in a wax bite to a life size photograph of the wound. 5. Comparing an acetate overlay manually fabricated from a photocopy of study models to a life size photograph of the wound.
Slide 10-

Sample Analysis http://forensic.to/webhome/bitemarks/
Slide 11-

Sample Analysis
Slide 12-

ACETATE OVERLAYS Most of these techniques involve the fabrication of an acetate overlay An acetate overlay is an outline of the biting edge of someone’s teeth as traced onto and seen on a clear transparency They can be fabricated in a number of ways A review of the literature has found over 15 methods These include tracing from dental models, photographs, wax bites, photocopies.
Slide 13-

COMPUTER PROGRAMS Have been developed to overcome some of these problems Theoretically they can; Correct for distortion Generate the overlay objectively Carry out the comparison objectively Reproduce the overlay
Slide 14-

Considerations & Limitations Daubert Standards and Bitemarks
Slide 15-

CRITISISMS OF BITEMARK ANALYSIS In recent years it has been questioned as a reliable scientific tool. This is based on: 1. Numerous methods of fabrication 2. Relies on manual fabrication 3. Subjective element in fabrication 4. Subjective element in comparison 5. Distortion which occurs As a result of this it has been suggested that bitemark analysis using acetate overlays are inaccurate, subjective and non-reproducible
Slide 16-

The Accuracy of Skin as a Substrate for a Bitemark The threshold variable in bitemark analysis is the fact that, in cases of physical assault having skin injuries, the anatomy and physiology of the skin, and the position the victim was in affects the detail and shape of the bitemark. There is one article from the early 1970's that showed how the positioning of the test bite on a bicep varied whether the arm was flexed or pronated. What is significant is that there is no way to experimentally control or establish the amount of positional variation in an actual bitemark case. The bottom line is that skin is usually a poor impression material. No significant tests have been published on this subject since 1971 in the odontology literature. http://forensic.to/webhome/bitemarks/
Slide 17-

What Standards Does Dentistry Meet? There is a considerable body of literature on the subject (http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/Forensic_pages_1/bitemark_ref.htm) There are rigid and strict standards (http://www.forensic.to/webhome/bitemarks/#ABFO%20Bite%20Mark%20Guidelines) Related to this, there is a known error rate Legal precedents on the admissibility of bitemark analyses exist (http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/Forensic_pages_1/us_cases.htm) The include the famous Ted Bundy case
Slide 18-

Consider the Following Outlines of the same set of teeth. The different perimeter shapes depend on how far the teeth are pressed into the test substrate.
Slide 19-

Some sample casts from class of ‘06