6.4 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forensic dentistry | 3/7 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_dentistry | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T09:19:59.890392+00:00 | kb-cron |
== Organizations == Several organizations are dedicated to the field of forensic odontology. These organizations include the Bureau of Legal Dentistry (BOLD), the American Board of Forensic Odontology (ABFO), American Society of Forensic Odontology (ASFO), the International Organization for Forensic Odonto-Stomatology (IOFOS) and the Association Forensic Odontology For Human Rights (AFOHR). Countries have their own forensic Odontological societies, including the British Association for Forensic Odontology (BAFO) and the Australian Society of Forensic Odontology (AuSFO). In 1996, BOLD was created at the University of British Columbia to develop new technology and techniques in forensic odontology. The University of British Columbia program is the only one in North America that provides graduate training in forensic odontology. In Canada, The Royal College of Dentists has not recognized forensic odontology therefore there is no organization for Canada, however, there are three well-developed and trained groups for forensic dentistry. These groups include British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec. British Columbia has a team called BC Forensic Odontology Response Team (BC_FORT) which is led by six dentists. They focus on disaster-victim identification work. Ontario has a team of ten forensic dentists called the Province of Ontario Dental Identification Team (PODIT). Quebec has a team that is run out of McGill University and they offer a well-established forensic dentistry online course that focuses on human bite-mark evidence. These teams are kept small in order to maintain a relationship between forensic dentists and casework. The Bureau of Legal Dentistry encourages the use of multiple dental impressions to create a “dental lineup”, similar to a suspect lineup used to identify alleged perpetrators of crime. Currently, dental impressions collected as evidence are compared only to those collected from a given suspect, which may bias the resulting outcome. Using multiple dental impressions in a lineup may enable forensic odontologists to significantly decrease the current bias in matching bite marks to the teeth of a suspect. The organization BOLD also supports the creation of a database of dental records, which could help in verifying dental uniqueness. This database could be created using criminal records or possibly all dental patients. In 1984, the ABFO attempted to diminish the discrepancies and increase the validity of bite mark analysis by creating bite mark methodology guidelines. The guidelines attempt to establish standard terminology in describing bite marks and that reduces the risk of biased results. The ABFO also provides advice on how to effectively collect and preserve evidence. For example, they recommend that the collection of DNA evidence and detailed photographs of bites be taken together at the crime scene. The guidelines also outline how and what a forensic odontologist should record, such as the location, contours, shape, and size of a bite mark. They also provide a system of scoring to assess the degree to which a suspect's dental profile and bite mark match. According to the ABFO, the guidelines are not a mandate of methods to be used, but a list of generally accepted methods. The guidelines are intended to prevent potentially useful evidence from being thrown out simply because the forensic odontologist's collection methods were not standardized. Kouble and Craig used a simplified version of the ABFO scoring guidelines in order to retain accuracy with a larger sample of comparisons. A numerical score was assigned to represent the degree of similarity between the bite mark and model/overlay. The higher the score, the greater the similarity. In order to simplify the model, some features that were individually scored in the ABFO guidelines such as arch size and shape were assessed together while certain distinctive features such as spacing between teeth were treated as a separate variable. The authors believe that a simplified version would increase the strength of the comparison process. In an attempt to improve guidelines used to collect dental evidence, IOFOS developed one of the most recognized systems for the collection of forensic dental evidence Indo-Pacific Academy of Forensic Odontology: The Indo-Pacific Academy of Forensic Odontology (INPAFO), established in 2007, is a leading professional body dedicated to advancing forensic odontology, with a strong presence in the Indo-Pacific region and global outreach. Under the guidance of its Patron, Dr. O. P. Jasuja, and visionary leadership of its Founder President, Dr. Rakesh Gorea, the Academy has fostered collaboration, education, and research in this specialised field. With Dr. Aman Chowdhry as General Secretary, INPAFO continues to expand its influence through initiatives such as the Journal of INPAFO, an acclaimed scientific publication. Learn more at www.inpafo.in There is only one international association promoting humanitarian forensic odontology, called AFOHR. It was inaugurated in 2015 by a group of experts in Lyon during the Interpol DVI annual meeting, following the inspiration of Emilio Nuzzolese, forensic odontologist from Italy. In 2019 the group evolved into Association adopting a by Laws and an elected Board. In 2016, an association of civil protection called Dental Team DVI Italia was founded in Bari, Italy, in order to offer pro bono services in the field of human identification and DVI Disaster Victim Identification to support Italian DVI teams.
== Bite mark analysis == A bite mark is defined as a change in a surface's appearance due to the teeth coming into contact with it, leaving behind a dental pattern of the bite. Studies have been performed in an attempt to find the simplest, most efficient, and most reliable way of analyzing bite marks and comparing them with one another and with suspects' teeth. There are two important notions when it comes to bite mark analysis: every individual has unique dentition that can be identifiable and this uniqueness can be found in a bite mark left in human skin. The theory behind bite mark analysis has been called into doubt in recent years, with many observers considering the entire field unscientific and invalid and calling for bite mark evidence to be inadmissible in court.