Forensic dentistry: 2. Bitemarks and bite injuries.Citation formats

Standard

Forensic dentistry: 2. Bitemarks and bite injuries. / Pretty, Iain A.

In: Dental Update, Vol. 35, No. 1, 01.2008, p. 48-58.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Pretty, IA 2008, 'Forensic dentistry: 2. Bitemarks and bite injuries.', Dental Update, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 48-58.

APA

Vancouver

Author

Pretty, Iain A. / Forensic dentistry: 2. Bitemarks and bite injuries. In: Dental Update. 2008 ; Vol. 35, No. 1. pp. 48-58.

Bibtex

@article{40f272fab27e499cbbb5974fbfefa650,
title = "Forensic dentistry: 2. Bitemarks and bite injuries.",
abstract = "While the practice of human identification is well established, validated and proven to be accurate, the practice of bitemark analysis is less well accepted.The principle of identifying an injury as a bitemark is complex and, depending on severity and anatomical location, highly subjective. Following the identification of an injury as a bitemark, the comparison of the pattern produced to a suspect's dentition is even more contentious and an area of great debate within contemporary odontological practice. Advanced techniques using digital overlays have been suggested, yet studies have shown that these can be inaccurate and there is no agreement as to the preferred method of comparison. However, the advent of DNA and its recovery from bitemarks has offered an objective method of bitemark analysis. Despite the strengths of DNA, the physical comparison of a suspect's dentition to bitemark injuries is still commonplace.The issues within bitemark analysis are discussed and illustrated with case examples. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dentists should be aware of where bitemarks are most commonly found, and of their significance in cases of children, the elderly and spousal abuse.",
keywords = "Aged, classification: Bites, Human, Child, analysis: DNA, analysis: DNA, Bacterial, Dental Models, Dentition, Female, methods: Forensic Dentistry, Humans, methods: Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Male, Photography, chemistry: Saliva, Sex Factors, injuries: Skin",
author = "Pretty, {Iain A.}",
year = "2008",
month = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "35",
pages = "48--58",
journal = "Dental Update",
issn = "0305-5000",
publisher = "George Warman Publications (UK) Ltd",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Forensic dentistry: 2. Bitemarks and bite injuries.

AU - Pretty, Iain A.

PY - 2008/1

Y1 - 2008/1

N2 - While the practice of human identification is well established, validated and proven to be accurate, the practice of bitemark analysis is less well accepted.The principle of identifying an injury as a bitemark is complex and, depending on severity and anatomical location, highly subjective. Following the identification of an injury as a bitemark, the comparison of the pattern produced to a suspect's dentition is even more contentious and an area of great debate within contemporary odontological practice. Advanced techniques using digital overlays have been suggested, yet studies have shown that these can be inaccurate and there is no agreement as to the preferred method of comparison. However, the advent of DNA and its recovery from bitemarks has offered an objective method of bitemark analysis. Despite the strengths of DNA, the physical comparison of a suspect's dentition to bitemark injuries is still commonplace.The issues within bitemark analysis are discussed and illustrated with case examples. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dentists should be aware of where bitemarks are most commonly found, and of their significance in cases of children, the elderly and spousal abuse.

AB - While the practice of human identification is well established, validated and proven to be accurate, the practice of bitemark analysis is less well accepted.The principle of identifying an injury as a bitemark is complex and, depending on severity and anatomical location, highly subjective. Following the identification of an injury as a bitemark, the comparison of the pattern produced to a suspect's dentition is even more contentious and an area of great debate within contemporary odontological practice. Advanced techniques using digital overlays have been suggested, yet studies have shown that these can be inaccurate and there is no agreement as to the preferred method of comparison. However, the advent of DNA and its recovery from bitemarks has offered an objective method of bitemark analysis. Despite the strengths of DNA, the physical comparison of a suspect's dentition to bitemark injuries is still commonplace.The issues within bitemark analysis are discussed and illustrated with case examples. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dentists should be aware of where bitemarks are most commonly found, and of their significance in cases of children, the elderly and spousal abuse.

KW - Aged

KW - classification: Bites, Human

KW - Child

KW - analysis: DNA

KW - analysis: DNA, Bacterial

KW - Dental Models

KW - Dentition

KW - Female

KW - methods: Forensic Dentistry

KW - Humans

KW - methods: Image Processing, Computer-Assisted

KW - Male

KW - Photography

KW - chemistry: Saliva

KW - Sex Factors

KW - injuries: Skin

M3 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 48

EP - 58

JO - Dental Update

JF - Dental Update

SN - 0305-5000

IS - 1

ER -