Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quantifying the potential of morphological parameters for human dental identification: part 1—proof of concept

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Legal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In forensic identification, lack of eccentric characteristics of intact dentitions hinders correct ante-mortem/post-mortem (AM/PM) matching. It remains unclear which morphological dental parameters hold strong potential as identifiers. This study aimed to establish a method to quantify and rank the identifying potential of one (or a combination of) continuous morphological parameter(s), and to provide a proof of concept. First, a statistic was defined that quantifies the identifying potential: the mean potential set (MPS). The MPS is derived from inter-observer agreement data and it indicates the percentage of subjects in the AM reference dataset who at least need to be considered to detect the correct PM subject. This was calculated in a univariate and a multivariate setting. Second, the method was validated on maxillary first molar crowns of 82 3D-digitally scanned cast models. Standardized measurements were registered using 3D modeling software (3-Matic Medical 12.0, Materialise N.V., Leuven, Belgium): tooth depth, angles between cusps, distances between cusps, distances between the cusps, and the mesial pit. A random sample of 40 first molars was measured by a second examiner. Quantifying and ranking the parameters allowed selecting those with the strongest identifying potential. This was found for the tooth depth (1 measurement, MPS = 17.1%, ICC = 0.879) in the univariate setting, and the angles between cusps (4 measurements, MPS = 3.9%) in the multivariate setting. As expected, the multivariate approach held significantly stronger identifying potential, but more measurements were needed (i.e., more time-consuming). Our method allows quantifying and ranking the potential of dental morphological parameters as identifiers using a clear-cut statistic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Madi HA, Swaid S, Al-Amad S (2013) Assessment of the uniqueness of human dentition. J Forensic Odontostomatol 31:30–39

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Pereira CP, Santos JC (2013) How to do identify single cases according to the quality assurance from IOFOS. The positive identification of an unidentified body by dental parameters: a case of homicide. J Forensic Leg Med 20:169–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2012.06.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fejerskov O, Kidd E, Nivad B (2003) Dental caries: the disease and its clinical management, 2nd ed.

  4. Fejerskov O (2004) Changing paradigms in concepts on dental caries: consequences for oral health care. Caries Res 38:182–191. https://doi.org/10.1159/000077753

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Tatakis DN, Kumar PS (2005) Etiology and pathogenesis of periodontal diseases. Dent Clin North Am 49:491–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2005.03.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Organization WH World Oral Health Report 2003. Published 2003. Accessed 15 February, 2018

  7. The Global Burden of Disease Study (2016) Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systema. Lancet 390:1211–1259

    Google Scholar 

  8. Pretty IA, Sweet D (2001) A look at forensic dentistry — part 1: the role of teeth in the determination of human identity. Br Dent J 190:359–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.synthmet.2012.11.026

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Franco A, Willems G, Souza PHC, et al. (2015) The uniqueness of the human dentition as forensic evidence: a systematic review on the technological methodology. Int J Legal Med

  10. Angelakopoulos N, Franco A, Willems G et al (2017) Clinically detectable dental identifiers observed in intra-oral photographs and extra-oral radiographs, validated for human identification purposes. J Forensic Sci 62:900–906. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Macaluso P Jr (2010) Sex discrimination potential of permanent maxillary molar cusp diameters. J Forensic Odontostomatol 28:22–31

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sweet D, Pretty IA (2001) A look at forensic dentistry — part 2: teeth as weapons of violence-identification of bitemark perpetrators. Br Dent J 190:415–418. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4800990

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Franco A, Willems G, Souza PHC et al (2017) Three-dimensional analysis of the uniqueness of the anterior dentition in orthodontically treated patients and twins. Forensic Sci Int 273:80–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.02.010

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kieser JA, Bernal V, Neil Waddell J, Raju S (2007) The uniqueness of the human anterior dentition: a geometric morphometric analysis. J Forensic Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00403.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Saks MJ, Koehler JJ (2008) The individualization fallacy in forensic science evidence. Vanderbilt Law Rev 61:199–219

    Google Scholar 

  16. Page M, Taylor J, Blenkin M (2011) Uniqueness in the forensic identification sciences—fact or fiction? Forensic Sci Int 206:12–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Johansen RJ, Michael Bowers C (2013) Positive dental identification using tooth anatomy and digital superimposition. J Forensic Sci 58:534–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12040

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Eliasziw M, Young SL, Woodbury MG, Fryday-Field K (1994) Statistical methodology for the concurrent assessment of interrater and intrarater reliability: using goniometric measurements as an example. Phys Ther 74:777–789

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Fieuws S, Verbeke G (2006) Pairwise fitting of mixed models for the joint modelling of multivariate longitudinal profiles. Biometrics 62:424–431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mahalanobis PC (1963) On the generalised distance in statistics. Proc Natl Inst Sci India 2:49–55

    Google Scholar 

  21. Balla SB, Forgie A (2017) Identification by comparison of caries free bitewing radiographs: impact of observer qualifications and their clinical experience. Forensic Sci Criminol 2:1–5. https://doi.org/10.15761/FSC.1000108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. da Silva RF, Pereira SD, Prado FB et al (2008) Forensic odontology identification using smile photograph analysis — case reports. J Forensic Odontostomatol 26:12–17

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Silva RF, Botelho TL, Prado FB et al (2011) Human identification based on cranial computed tomography scan — a case report. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 40:257–261. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/96080236

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Forrest AS, Wu HYH (2010) Endodontic imaging as an aid to forensic personal identification. Aust Endod J 36:87–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4477.2010.00242.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. de Almeida SM, Delwing F, de Azevedo JAP et al (2015) Effectiveness of dental records in human identification. RGO - Rev Gaúcha Odontol 63:502–506. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-863720150003000213017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Roy J, Rohith M, Nilendu D, Johnson A (2019) Qualitative assessment of the dental groove pattern and its uniqueness for forensic identification. J Forensic Dent Sci 11:42–47

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Adams BJ, Aschheim KW (2016) Computerized dental comparison: a critical review of dental coding and ranking algorithms used in victim identification. J Forensic Sci 61:76–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12909

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Al-Amad SH, Clement JG, McCullough MJ et al (2007) Evaluation of two dental identification computer systems: DAVID and WinID3. J Forensic Odontostomatol 25:23–29

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Lynch J, Stephan C (2018) Computational tools in forensic anthropology: the value of open-source licensing as a standard. Forensic Anthropol 1:228–243. https://doi.org/10.5744/fa.2018.0025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Win ID. In: https://abfo.org/winid. Accessed April 2021

  31. Lewis C, Leventhal L (2004) Dental identification software programs compared on disaster size and direction of search. J Forensic Identif 54:572–592

    Google Scholar 

  32. Odonto Search. In: http://www.odontosearch.com. Accessed April 2021

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Imaging and Pathology, Forensic Odontology, KU Leuven, Louvain, Belgium

    A. Milheiro, J. De Tobel, C. Capitaneanu & P. Thevissen

  2. Diagnostic Sciences – Radiology, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    J. De Tobel

  3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery - Imaging and Pathology (OMFS-IMPATH), Louvain, UZ, Belgium

    E. Shaheen

  4. Inter-University Institute for Biostatistics and Statistical Bioinformatics, KU Louvain, University of Leuven and University of Hasselt, Louvain, Belgium

    S. Fieuws

Authors
  1. A. Milheiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. De Tobel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Capitaneanu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. Shaheen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Fieuws
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. P. Thevissen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Milheiro.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

The current research was developed after approval of the Ethics Committee of the University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (December 17, 2018). This work was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences on 20 February 2020, Anaheim, USA (Abstract G9).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Milheiro, A., De Tobel, J., Capitaneanu, C. et al. Quantifying the potential of morphological parameters for human dental identification: part 1—proof of concept. Int J Legal Med 138, 25–34 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-022-02853-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-022-02853-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation