The document discusses the field of forensic odontology and provides examples of how dental evidence and records can be used for human identification. It notes that teeth can withstand decomposition better than other tissues and each person has a unique dental structure. The document then presents a case study where dental radiographs showing prior endodontic treatments were used to positively identify an exhumed body six months after burial. Well-documented dental records, including radiographs, allow for human identification even in challenging forensic cases.

2. DIALECTIC DENTISTRY
-KEERTHANA.R
SREE BALAJI DENTAL
COLLEGE & HOSPITAL

3. • Forensic Odontology is the application
of dental science to the administration
of the law and the furtherance of
justice. It provides an important
community service in both the civil and
criminal jurisdictions.

4. HISTORY
• 66AD – First body identified using
teeth
– Lollia Paulina
• Revolutionary War
– Paul Revere was the first forensic
dentist in the United States because
he identified fallen revolutionary
soldiers.
• 1849 – Mass deaths at Vienna Opera
House Fire
– Dental evidence was first admitted
into court system in US

5. WHY TEETH??
 Every human body ages in a similar manner, the teeth
also follow a semi-standardized pattern. These
quantitative measurements help establish relative age of
person.
 Each human has an individual set of teeth which can be
traced back to established dental records to find missing
individuals.
 Teeth is made of enamel (hardest tissue of the body) so it
can withstand trauma (decomposition, heat degradation,
water immersion, and desiccation) better than other
tissues in body.
 Teeth are a source of DNA: dental pulp or a crushed tooth
can provide nuclear or mitochondrial DNA that to help
identify a person

6. INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS
 Size of tooth
 Shape of tooth
 Shape of root
 Placement of tooth
 Quantity of teeth
 Combinations of dental
work done:
 Crowns
 Extractions
 Bridge
 Fillings
 Root canals

7. APPLICATIONS
• Identification of found human remains
• Identification in mass fatalities
• Assessment of bite mark injuries
• Assessment of cases of abuse (such as
child, spousal or elder abuse)
• Civil cases involving malpractice
• Age estimation

8. IDENTIFICATION
INDIVIDUAL
 Postmortem
description is
generated
-X rays and
radiographs
 Positive
identification is
compared to
ante-mortem data
 Negative
identification, a
biological profile
is generated
MASS
 Same process is
used as individual
identification
 Organization is
crucial
 Family is asked
to come identify
the body, and
narrow down the
pool of victims.

9. BITE MARKS ANALYSIS
• Bite-mark evidence has been used as an aid
in the identification of criminals in many
instances.
• It is shown how perpetrators of violent
injuries were detected from bite marks on
the victim or the perpetrator, or on
foodstuffs found at the scene of the
crime, when the marks were compared to
dental impressions taken subsequently’.

10. FORENSICS IN ENDODONTICS
• Endodontics is a specific branch of
odontology, which essentially depends on
imaging exams.
• Dental radiographs are the most common
source of antemortem(AM) evidence for
human identification.
• The comparative human identification is
usually based on forensic evidence, such as
dental treatments and unique morphology.

11. CASE REPORT
• In 2015, an unknown body, recovered from
a traffic accident site, was referred to
the Medico-Legal Institute of Goiania,
Brazil.
• The body awaited in the institute for 30
days allowing the relatives to claim it.
• The body was buried as an unknown person.
• Nevertheless, the PM data of the victim
was properly registered for possible human
identification needs.

12. Comparison of ante-mortem (A: 2011,
B: 2013 and C: 2013) and post-mortem
(D: 2015) periapical radiographs,
highlighting the endodontic treatment
of the maxillary right second pre-molar
(#15); the pneumatization of the right
maxillary sinus in the molar region; and
the missing maxillary right first
molar(#16).

13. Comparison of ante-mortem (A: 2011 and
B: 2013) and post-mortem (C: 2015)
periapical radiographs, highlighting the
endodontic treatment of the maxillary
left lateral incisor (#22).

14. • In 2016, six months after the
burial, potential relatives of the
victim claimed the body, and the
exhumation and human
identification were performed.
• The fingerprint identification was
not feasible due to the absence of
AM fingerprint data.
• The relatives provided dental AM
data collected from a private
dental clinic.

15. • The data consisted of periapical
radiographs, dated from 2011 and 2013,
related to the endodontic treatment of
the maxillary right second pre-molar
(#15) (Figure 1); and the maxillary left
lateral incisor (#22) (Figure 2).
• Moreover, the periapical radiographs
revealed bilateral pneumatization of the
maxillary sinuses in the molar region,
and the absence of the maxillary right
first molar (#16).

16. • Based on that, the PM data
was obtained performing
periapical radiographs of
teeth highlighted AM.
• The same forensic evidence
was detected both AM and
PM, resulting in a positive
dental identification.

17. • Dental radiographs are considered the
most reliable source of AM data in the
human identification field.
• Specifically, dental radiographs allow
for a close PM duplication of AM
evidence, consequently enabling an
optimal comparative procedure.
• Additionally, root canal treatments are
less modified in the clinical routine if
compared to dental interventions
performed on the dental crown.

18. • Thus, endodontic identifiers are
maintained for a longer period as
forensic tools.
• In special situations, such as major fire
disasters, the dental structures become
fragile.
• However, endodontic filling materials
remain preserved up to 1100° Celsius,
allowing for human identification
processes.

19. • Accordingly, Bonavilla et al, 2012, confirmed
the preservation of microscopic structural
patterns of root sealers and gutta percha
exposed to high temperatures.
• The practical usefulness of endodontic
evidence for human identification was already
described by Spyropoulos and Liakakoy in
2006.
• The authors achieved a positive dental
identification based on the endodontic
treatment and morphologic outline of a single
maxillary right second premolar.

20. • In 1996, Weisman explained the
reliability of AM endodontic records as
a forensic tool performing a successful
dental human identification.
• Now a days, the present study
highlights the legal importance of
storing and updating clinical records
which allow for a positive dental
identification based on endodontic
treatment.

21. SUMMARY
• Despite the constant enhancement of
dental techniques, materials and facilities,
the conventional radiographs, routinely
performed in the clinical practice, are still
the most common source of forensic AM
data for the human identification process.
• In this context, endodontics becomes a
valuable specialty in the forensic scope,
once periapical radiographs are often
performed.

22. • The present case report
illustrates the relevance of
properly recording clinical
interventions, through dental
radiographs, providing a
successful case of positive
dental human identification
based on endodontic findings.

23. REFERENCES
• Verma K, Joshi B, Joshi CH, Reject Paul MP
(2013) Bite Marks as Physical Evidence from
the Crime Scene-An Overview. 2:605
• "Graduate Diploma in Forensic Odontology :
Melbourne Dental School".
Dent.unimelb.edu.au. Retrieved 2013-09-06.
• "Graduate Diploma in Forensic Odontology:
School of Dentistry: The University of
Western Australia". Dentistry.uwa.edu.au.
2012-08-10. Retrieved 2013-09-06.
• Graduate Diploma in Forensic Odontology
• Forensic Odontology MFOdont. Retrieved 25
September 2014. Douglas, John. Mindhunter,
NY: Scribner, 1995

24. • "srep605 Digital Article". Journal of
Bacteriology S1. doi:10.4172/scientificreports.605.
• D. V. Taylor (1963). "The Law and the Dentist" (PDF). British Dental
Journal 114: 389–393.
• Bowers, CM (2006). "Problem-based analysis of bitemark
misidentifications: the role of DNA". Forensic Science International.
159 Suppl 1: S104–
9.doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.02.032. PMID 16600549.
• Dorion, Robert BJ. Bitemark Evidence, NY: Marcel Dekker, 2005 ISBN
0-8247-5414-X.
• "Bureau of Legal Dentistry". boldlab.ubc.ca. Retrieved 2013-09-06.
• American Board of Forensic Odontology
• Kouble RF, Craig GT. (2004). "A comparison between direct and
indirect methods available for human bite mark analysis". Journal of
Forensic Science 49 (1): 111–118. doi:10.1520/JFS2001252.
• "International Organization of Forensic Odonto-Stomatology
Regulations (1987)". Web.archive.org. 2009-02-09. Archived from the
original on 2009-02-09. Retrieved2013-09-06.