Ciltteki İnsan Isırık İzinin Analizinde Kullanılan 3D Teknolojiler
Özet
Adli odontolojinin önemli bir dalı olan ısırık izi analizi, fail kimliklendirmesinde ve ceza davalarında delil sunmada tarihsel bir öneme sahip olsa da, geleneksel 2D yöntemlerin subjektifliği ve ciltteki deformasyonlar nedeniyle eleştirilere maruz kalmıştır. DNA keşfi sonrası ortaya çıkan hatalı mahkumiyetler, bu alanda daha bilimsel ve tekrarlanabilir yaklaşımlara ihtiyaç duyulduğunu göstermiştir. Yaralanmaların çok boyutlu yapısı göz önüne alındığında, son yıllarda devreye giren 3D tarama ve bilgisayar tabanlı yazılım (DentalPrint, BitePrint vb.) teknolojileri, ağız içi morfolojiyi ve ısırık izlerini yüksek çözünürlükte, hızlı ve tahribatsız şekilde dijital ortama aktararak analizlerin objektifliğini artırmaktadır. Bu ileri teknolojiler; veri tabanı oluşturma, bulut sunucuları üzerinden uzaktan çalışma ve mahkemede sanal sunum yapabilme gibi büyük avantajlar sunar. Buna karşın, cildin viskoelastik yapısı sebebiyle diş girintilerinin zamanla kaybolarak sadece hematomun kalması, ısırma açısının desenleri değiştirmesi ve yetişkinlerde dişlerin yaşam boyu hareket etmeye devam etmesi gibi yapısal zorluklar mevcuttur. Bu nedenle, 3D teknolojilerinin sunduğu potansiyeli en üst düzeye çıkarmak için malzemenin sınırlılıklarını bilen uzmanların yetişmesi ve teorilerin geniş örneklemli gerçek adli vakalarla desteklenmesi gerekmektedir.
Bite mark analysis, an important branch of forensic odontology, has historical significance in perpetrator identification and criminal cases, but it has faced criticism due to the subjectivity of traditional 2D methods and skin distortions. Wrongful convictions revealed after the discovery of DNA highlighted the need for more scientific and reproducible approaches in this field. Considering the multi-dimensional nature of injuries, recently introduced 3D scanning and computer-based software (such as DentalPrint and BitePrint) technologies increase the objectivity of analyses by transferring intraoral morphology and bite marks into digital media rapidly, non-destructively, and in high resolution. These advanced technologies offer significant advantages, such as creating databases, working remotely via cloud servers, and making virtual presentations in court. However, structural challenges remain, such as the loss of tooth indentations over time due to the viscoelastic nature of the skin—leaving only hematomas—variations in patterns based on the biting angle, and the lifelong movement of teeth in adults. Therefore, to maximize the potential of 3D technologies, it is essential to train experts who understand the limitations of the methods and to support these theories with large-sample real forensic cases.
Referanslar
Campbell AM. An increasing risk of family violence during the Covid-19 pandemic: strengthening community collaborations to save lives. Forensic Science International: Reports, 2020; 2, 100089. Doi: 10.1016/j.fsir.2020.100089.
Viero A, Barbara G, Montisci M, diğer. Violence against women in the Covid-19 pandemic: a review of the literature and a call for shared strategies to tackle health and social emergencies. Forensic Science International, 2021; 319, 110650. Doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110650.
Freeman AJ, Senn DR, Arendt DM. Seven hundred seventy eight bite marks: analysis by anatomic location, victim and biter demographics, type of crime, and legal disposition. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2005; 50 (6), 1436-1443. Doi: 10.1520/JFS2005178.
Sweet D, Pretty IA. A look at forensic dentistry-Part 2: teeth as weapons of violence-identification of bitemark perpetrators. British Dental Journal, 2001; 190 (8), 415-418. Doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4800990.
Lasser AJ, Warnick AJ, Berman GM. Three-dimensional comparative analysis of bitemarks. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2009; 54 (3), 658-561. Doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01009.x.
Pretty IA. The barriers to achieving an evidence base for bitemark analysis. Forensic Science International, 2006; 159 (Supplement), S110-S120. Doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.02.033.
Clement JG, Blackwell SA. Is current bite mark analysis a misnomer? Forensic Science International, 2010; 201 (1-3), 33-37. Doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.03.006.
Pretty IA, Sweet D. The scientific basis for human bitemark analyses-a critical review. Science & Justice : Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 2001; 41 (2), 85-92. Doi: 10.1016/S1355-0306(01)71859-X.
Dorion, RB. (2011). Bitemark evidence: a color atlas and text. (Second Edition). Boca Raton, Florida, United States: CRC Press.
Christensen AM, Crowder CM. Evidentiary standards for forensic anthropology. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2009; 54 (6), 1211-1216. Doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01176.x.
Supreme Court of the United Sates Syllabus (1993). Daubert et ux., individually and as guardians ad litem for Daubert, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. No. 92-102. 509 U.S. 579. (20/01/2022 tarihinde https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-102.ZS.html adresinden ulaşılmıştır).
The innocence project (2007). News: cases where DNA revealed that bite mark analysis led to wrongful arrests and convictions. (20/01/2022 tarihinde https://innocenceproject.org/cases-where-dna-revealed-that-bite-mark-analysis-led-to-wrongful-arrests-and-convictions/ adresinden ulaşılmıştır).
lnternational Organization for Forensic Odonto-Stomatology (2004) .Quality assurance in forensic odonto-stomatology. (20/01/2022 tarihinde http://www.iofos.eu/Quality-Ass/general.htm adresinden ulaşılmıştır).
American Board of Forensic Odontology (2017). Diplomates reference manual. (20/01/2022 tarihinde http://abfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ABFO-Reference-Manual-April-2017-v7.pdf adresinden ulaşılmıştır).
Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, National Research Council (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward (20/01/2022 tarihinde https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf adresinden ulaşılmıştır).
Tuceryan M, Li F, Blitzer HL, diğer. A framework for estimating probability of a match in forensic bite mark identification. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2011; 56 (Supplement 1), S83-S89. Doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01571.x.
Blackwell SA, Taylor RV, Gordon I, diğer. 3-D imaging and quantitative comparison of human dentitions and simulated bite marks. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 2007; 121 (1), 9-17. Doi: 10.1007/s00414-005-0058-6.
Franco A, Willems G, Souza PH, diğer. The uniqueness of the human dentition as forensic evidence: a systematic review on the technological methodology. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 2015; 129 (6), 1277-1283. Doi: 10.1007/s00414-014-1109-7.
Molina A, Ramos B, Torres JC, diğer. Dental parameter quantification with semi-automatized computational technology for the analysis of human bitemarks. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2020; 1-11. Doi: 10.1080/00450618.2020.1793385.
Thali MJ, Braun M, Markwalder TH, diğer. Bite mark documentation and analysis: the forensic 3D/CAD supported photogrammetry approach. Forensic Science International, 2003; 135 (2), 115-121. Doi: 10.1016/s0379-0738(03)00205-6.
Martin-de las Heras S, Valenzuela A, Ogayar C, diğer. Computer-based production of comparison overlays from 3D-scanned dental casts for bite mark analysis. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2005; 50 (1), 127-133. Doi: Not found, Paper ID: JFS2004226, PMID: 15831006, NCJ Number 208576.
Martin-de las Heras S, Valenzuela A, Javier Valverde A, diğer. Effectiveness of comparison overlays generated with DentalPrint software in bite mark analysis. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2007; 52 (1), 151-156. Doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00321.x.
Martin-de-Las-Heras S, Tafur D, Bravo M. A quantitative method for comparing human dentition with tooth marks using three-dimensional technology and geometric morphometric analysis. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, 2014; 72 (5), 331-336. Doi: 10.3109/00016357.2013.826383.
Krishan K, Kanchan T, Garg AK. Dental evidence in forensic identification - an overview, methodology and present status. The Open Dentistry Journal, 2015; 9 250-256. Doi: 10.2174/1874210601509010250.
Barsley R, Freeman A, Metcalf R, diğer. Bitemark analysis. Journal of the American Dental Association, 2012; 143 (5), 444, 446; author reply 446, 448. Doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2012.0196.
Rothwell BR. Bite marks in forensic dentistry: a review of legal, scientific issues. Journal of the American Dental Association, 1995; 126 (2), 223-232. Doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1995.0149.
Pretty IA. A web-based survey of odontologist's opinions concerning bitemark analyses. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2003; 48 (5), 1117-1120. Doi: Not found, PMID: 14535678, NCJ Number 203127.
Holtkotter H, Sheets HD, Bush PJ, diğer. Effect of systematic dental shape modification in bitemarks. Forensic Science International, 2013; 228 (1-3), 61-69. Doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.02.024.
Ramos B, Torres JC, Molina A, diğer. A new method to geometrically represent bite marks in human skin for comparison with the suspected dentition. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2019; 51 (2), 220-230. Doi: 10.1080/00450618.2017.1356869.
Franco A, Willems G, Souza PHC, diğer. Three-dimensional analysis of the uniqueness of the anterior dentition in orthodontically treated patients and twins. Forensic Science International, 2017; 273 80-87. Doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.02.010.
Koops BJ, Schellekens M. Forensic DNA phenotyping: regulatory issues. The Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 2007; 9 (1), 158 - 202. Doi: 10.7916/stlr.v9i0.3818.
Zhang F, Suh KJ, Lee KM. Validity of intraoral scans compared with plaster models: an in-vivo comparison of dental measurements and 3D surface analysis. PloS One, 2016; 11 (6), e0157713. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157713.
Chong GT, Forgie AH. A pilot study to analyze the uniqueness of anterior teeth using a novel three-dimensional approach. Journal of Forensic Identification, 2017; 67 (3), 361. Doi:
Mou QN, Ji LL, Liu Y, diğer. Three-dimensional superimposition of digital models for individual identification. Forensic Science International, 2021; 318, 110597. Doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110597.
Bush MA, Bush PJ, Sheets HD. Similarity and match rates of the human dentition in three dimensions: relevance to bitemark analysis. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 2011; 125 (6), 779-784. Doi: 10.1007/s00414-010-0507-8.
Sheets HD, Bush PJ, Bush MA. Patterns of variation and match rates of the anterior biting dentition: characteristics of a database of 3D-scanned dentitions. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2013; 58 (1), 60-68. Doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2012.02293.x.
Dyke AEC, Cunningham S, Hunt N, diğer. A comparative study to investigate the effect of orthodontic treatment on the uniqueness of the human anterior dentition. Forensic Science International, 2018; 289, 368-373. Doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.06.008.
Bush MA, Bush PJ, Sheets HD. Statistical evidence for the similarity of the human dentition. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2011; 56 (1), 118-123. Doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01531.x.
Dutta S. Awareness of Forensic Dentistry among Dental Practitioners. Indian Journal of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, 2020; 14 (3), 553. Doi: Not found.
de Sainte Croix MM, Gauld D, Forgie AH, diğer. Three-dimensional imaging of human cutaneous forearm bite marks in human volunteers over a 4 day period. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 2016; 40, 34-39. Doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2016.02.003.
Sheasby DR, MacDonald DG. A forensic classification of distortion in human bite marks. Forensic Science International, 2001; 122 (1), 75-78. Doi: 10.1016/s0379-0738(01)00433-9.
Bernitz H, Piper SE, Solheim T, diğer. Comparison of bitemarks left in foodstuffs with models of the suspects' dentitions as a means of identifying a perpetrator. The Journal of Forensic Odonto-Stomatology, 2000; 18 (2), 27-31. Doi: Not found, PMID: 11324267.
Hyzer WG, Krauss TC. The bite mark standard reference scale - ABFO No. 2. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1988; 33 (2), 498-506. Doi: 10.1520/JFS11963J.
Alsowayigh K, Almajaishe R, Alateeq H, diğer. Forensic odontology knowledge analysis among undergraduates dental students in Saudi Aribia. Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International, 2021; 33 (47A), 282-290. Doi: 10.9734/JPRI/2021/v33i47A33015.
Bernitz H, Owen JH, van Heerden WF, diğer. An integrated technique for the analysis of skin bite marks. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2008; 53 (1), 194-198. Doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00618.x.
YC X. The validity of bite mark evidence for legal purposes. [Mini thesis] University of the Western Cape; Bellville, City of Cape Town, South Africa, 2021.
Stols G, Bernitz H. Reconstruction of deformed bite marks using affine transformations. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2010; 55 (3), 784-787. Doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01337.x.
Vilborn P, Bernitz H. A systematic review of 3D scanners and computer assisted analyzes of bite marks: searching for improved analysis methods during the Covid-19 pandemic. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 2021; Doi: 10.1007/s00414-021-02667-z.
George R, George A. COVID-19 as an occupational disease? South African Medical Journal, 2020; 110 (4), Doi: 10.7196/SAMJ.2020.v110i4.14712.
Nuzzolese E, Pandey H, Lupariello F. Dental autopsy recommendations in SARS-CoV-2 infected cases. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 2020; 2 154-156. Doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.04.004.
Remondino F. (2003). From point cloud to surface: the modeling and visualization problem. International Workshop on Visualization and Animation of Reality-based 3D Models, 24-28 February 2003, Tarasp-Vulpera, Engadin, Switzerland, 11.
Yalcinkaya S, Yildiz B, Borak M. Optical 3D scanner technology. International Journal of 3D Printing Technologies and Digital Industry, 2019; 3 (1), 67-75. Doi: Not found.
Molina A, Martin-de-las-Heras S. Accuracy of 3D scanners in tooth mark analysis. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2015; 60 (Supplement 1), S222-S226. Doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.12598.
Buck U, Busse K, Campana L, diğer. Validation and evaluation of measuring methods for the 3D documentation of external injuries in the field of forensic medicine. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 2018; 132 (2), 551-561. Doi: 10.1007/s00414-017-1756-6.
van der Velden A, Spiessens M, Willems G. Bite mark analysis and comparison using image perception technology. The Journal of Forensic Odonto-Stomatology, 2006; 24 (1), 14-17. Doi: Not found, PMID: 16783951.
Sweet D, Parhar M, Wood RE. Computer-based production of bite mark comparison overlays. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1998; 43 (5), 1050-1055. Doi: 10.1520/JFS14356J.
Means CR, Flenniken IE. Gagging - a problem in prosthetic dentistry. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 1970; 23 (6), 614-620. Doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(70)90224-6.
Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, diğer. Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (intraoral scan) of dental implants. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2014; 25 (10), 1113-1118. Doi: 10.1111/clr.12234.
Patzelt SB, Lamprinos C, Stampf S, diğer. The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study. Journal of the American Dental Association, 2014; 145 (6), 542-551. Doi: 10.14219/jada.2014.23.
Errickson D, Fawcett H, Thompson TJU, diğer. The effect of different imaging techniques for the visualisation of evidence in court on jury comprehension. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 2020; 134 (4), 1451-1455. Doi: 10.1007/s00414-019-02221-y.
