Forensic Dentistry, Second Edition

172 Forensic dentistry

identifier matches, and fuzzy dental logic. After selecting a record for compar-
ison, the examiner is then able to view the specifics of each record and view
the case identifiers, the odontogram, and an associated graphic/radiograph
of the cases in a side-by-side fashion. WinID3 has been paired with digital
intraoral radiographic software to produce an efficient and effective system
for multiple fatality incidents that allows the use of the more sophisticated
image management software features (see Chapter 12).
Whether the initial comparisons are made manually or with the aid of a
computer, a visual comparison of the records should be made by the forensic
odontologist. The terminology for conclusions resulting from the compari-
son and correlation process should follow the guidelines of the American
Board of Forensic Odontology (ABFO).^8 Information regarding guidelines
for body identification and missing/unidentified persons can be found on
the ABFO website at http://www.abfo.org and in the American Board of Forensic
Odontology Diplomates Reference Manual.
Forensic dentists may assist medical examiners and coroners by compar-
ing the dentition of decedents with antemortem photographs showing the
teeth. The technique was suggested by Dr. R. Souviron, who has long used
what he calls smiley-face photographs to compare to unidentified bodies. The
grin line method (a smile may not show teeth) using Adobe® Photoshop® has
been developed, evaluated, and utilized. The method and its uses have been
presented in the Odontology Section of the American Academy of Forensic
Sciences.9,10 This method is not a stand-alone method of identification but is
to be used in conjunction with other information to assist medical examiners
and coroners to establish identification.

9.5 Statistical and Mathematical Models

Most dentists accept that one person’s teeth are different from those of another.

Even with identical twins, the sharing of a common DNA profile does not

equate with identical phenotypic representation. This is true of all anatomic

features, including fingerprints and the teeth (see Chapters 6 and 14).

Forensic examiners have considered the mathematical probability of an

individual dentition having a unique combination of missing or present teeth,

restored and unrestored teeth, or restored or unrestored surfaces of those teeth.

The number of different combinations possible in this type of mathematical

sampling is very large. One of the most well known of these studies was com-

pleted by Dr. Soren Keiser-Nielsen, a Danish forensic odontologist. In the

abstract for this paper Keiser-Nielsen cautioned that a dental expert “ cannot

base his identification of an unknown body on the relative frequency of occur-

rence of any singular dental feature, its particular discrimination potential.