PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15818864

A comparative reliability analysis of computer-generated bitemark overlays.

Anne H McNamee·David Sweet·Iain Pretty
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This study compared the reliability of two methods used to produce computer-generated bitemark overlays with Adobe Photoshop (Adobe Systems Inc., San Jose, CA). Scanned images of twelve dental casts were sent to 30 examiners with different experience levels. Examiners were instructed to produce an overlay for each cast image based on the instructions provided for the two techniques. Measurements of the area and the x-y coordinate position of the biting edges of the anterior teeth were obtained using Scion Image software program (Scion Corporation, Frederick, MD) for each overlay. The inter- and intra-reliability assessment of the measurements was performed using an analysis of variance and calculation of reliability coefficients. The assessment of the area measurements showed significant variances seen in the examiner variable for both techniques resulting in low reliability coefficients. Conversely, the results for the positional measurements showed no significant differences in the variances between examiners with exceptionally high reliability coefficients. It was concluded that both techniques were reliable methods to produce bitemark overlays in assessing tooth position.

Explore related subjects

Bites, HumanComputer SimulationDentitionForensic MedicineHumansObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsSoftwareComparative StudyJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tValidation Study

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Anne H McNamee, David Sweet, Iain Pretty. 2005. A comparative reliability analysis of computer-generated bitemark overlays.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15818864/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Problem-based analysis of bitemark misidentifications: the role of DNA.

The dental literature concerning bitemark methodology is surprisingly thin and sorely lacking in rigorous scientific testing. Contra to this fact, the bitemark legal caselaw is surprisingly strong and is used as a substitute for reliability testing of bite mark identification. In short, the Judiciary and the Prosecutors have loved forensic odontologists. This paper will focus on the author's participation as a Defense expert over the last seven years in over 50 bitemark prosecutions and judicial appeals. This sampling will act as an anecdotal survey of actual bitemark evidence. Certain trends regarding methods and reliability issues of odontologists will be discussed. Several of these cases have been later judicially overturned due to DNA analyses after the defendants were originally convicted. These diagnostic misadventures are being vocally discussed in the US media by news and legal investigators who are asking hard questions. The forensic dentistry community, however, is curiously silent. What actions are necessary by the profession to improve this assault on the 52-year tradition of bite mark identifications in the United States?

Bites, Human↗
PubMed2006

The barriers to achieving an evidence base for bitemark analysis.

Forensic dentistry is the union of two scientific disciplines, both of which are undergoing a renewed scientific rigor. In forensic science the advent of the Daubert ruling has required that judges assess the forensic value of 'expert testimony' ensuring that techniques, methodologies and practices are not only commonly accepted (as was the previous hurdle during the Frye era) but that error rates, assessment of reliability and validation studies are published to support their use. This new degree of judicial scrutiny has been mirrored in the field of dentistry itself, where organisations search and summarise randomised controlled trials in order to recommend best practice and devise clinical care pathways that are firmly grounded in proven scientific research. Despite the obvious drive from both of these professions, forensic dentistry, and in particular the sub-discipline of bitemark analysis, has been remarkably slow to address the obvious deficiencies in the evidence base that underpins this element of forensic science. Reviews of the literature reveal that the vast majority of published works are case reports, and very little primary literature exists. This paper reviews those studies that have assessed aspects of bitemark analysis including the crucial issue of the uniqueness of the human dentition; the application of transparent overlays and the application of statistical probabilities in bitemark conclusions. There are numerous barriers to undertaking high quality research in the field of bitemark analysis, the most important of which is the use of a gold-standard that is acceptable both in terms of diagnostic research but is also forensically relevant. If bitemark analysis is to continue to play a role in the judicial process then there is an urgent need for high quality studies that meet the levels of forensic and scientific scrutiny applied to other disciplines within the criminal justice system. Studies are required to determine not that the human dentition is unique, but how this asserted uniqueness is represented on human skin and other substrates. The error rates associated with the analysis of bitemarks are required on a procedural level as well as an individual practitioner basis and scales and interpretative indices of bitemark severity and forensic significance should be validated and introduced into common use.

Bites, Human↗