PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16783951

Bite mark analysis and comparison using image perception technology.

A van der Velden·M Spiessens·G Willems
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

To analyse and compare a bite mark left on human skin with a suspect's dentition is a difficult procedure. The assumption that the human dentition is unique plays an important role in this process. However it is near impossible to prove that a particular bite mark was produced by a specific dentition. Key elements to analyse a bite mark are the amount of detail available in the information about the bite mark and the suspected biter's dentition. Both are of vital importance to the investigating forensic odontologist. In this article a new method of analysing bite marks using image perception technology is described. With this technology it is possible to artificially colour areas with equal intensity values and depict a 2-D image as a pseudo-3-D surface object. The use of image perception technology may allow visualization of a degree of detail unavailable with any other method.

Explore related subjects

Bites, HumanDentitionForensic DentistryHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalModels, DentalPhotographySoftwareJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A van der Velden, M Spiessens, G Willems. 2006. Bite mark analysis and comparison using image perception technology.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16783951/

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↗