Bitemark analysis comparing the use of digital scans and 3D resin casts.

Andrea Di Palma, Ilenia Bianchi, Martina Focardi, Chiara Cioffi, Stefano S Bonetti, Domenico Dalessandri
{"title":"Bitemark analysis comparing the use of digital scans and 3D resin casts.","authors":"Andrea Di Palma, Ilenia Bianchi, Martina Focardi, Chiara Cioffi, Stefano S Bonetti, Domenico Dalessandri","doi":"10.5281/zenodo.13474602","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although dental patterns are unique, the use of bitemark analysis in personal identification remains controversial. To accurately reproduce and compare three-dimensional models of bitemarks and dental arches, intraoral three-dimensional scans, commonly utilized in clinical dental practice for precise and stable digital impressions, are recommended. This study aims to compare two different techniques for bitemark analysis: a digital method based on the superimposition of digital scans of dental patterns and lesions, and a visual method based on the physical superimposition of impressions and resin casts produced by 3D printing. A sample of 12 volunteers (6 males and 6 females) with a mean age of 26 years was collected as biters. Each subject was asked to bite on custom supports made from semi-rigid water bottles covered with imprintable dental wax. The dental arches and bitemarks were then recorded using an intraoral scanner and dental impressions. Scan superimposition analysis was conducted using CloudCompare software, while resin casts were printed using a 3D printer and physically superimposed on the bitemark impressions by a blind operator, who was not involved in sample collection, bite test execution, prior cast acquisition, or CloudCompare analysis. Both superimposition techniques relied on the selection of 10 corresponding landmarks (on canines and central and lateral incisors of the upper and lower arches) between the dental arches and impressions. The digital superimposition showed an average concordance of 92.5% for the upper arch landmarks and 85% for the lower arch landmarks, with an overall average concordance of 88.8% for both arches combined. In contrast, the visual analysis of resin casts showed an average concordance of 77.5% for the upper arch and 76.7% for the lower arch, with an overall average of 77.1% for both arches combined. In the analysis performed using CloudCompare, the maxillary arch demonstrated the best superimposition, with 4 landmarks (R0, R1, R2, R5) consistently overlapping. The digital analysis outperformed the visual analysis in all four quadrants, particularly in the upper right arch compared to the lower left arch, thereby supporting the integration of digital techniques in forensic applications. Further studies are necessary to validate the digital technique on a larger sample, including subjects with different dental characteristics, bite dynamics, and varying types of supports and substrates.</p>","PeriodicalId":35728,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Forensic Odonto-Stomatology","volume":"42 2","pages":"76-86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11446576/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Forensic Odonto-Stomatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13474602","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although dental patterns are unique, the use of bitemark analysis in personal identification remains controversial. To accurately reproduce and compare three-dimensional models of bitemarks and dental arches, intraoral three-dimensional scans, commonly utilized in clinical dental practice for precise and stable digital impressions, are recommended. This study aims to compare two different techniques for bitemark analysis: a digital method based on the superimposition of digital scans of dental patterns and lesions, and a visual method based on the physical superimposition of impressions and resin casts produced by 3D printing. A sample of 12 volunteers (6 males and 6 females) with a mean age of 26 years was collected as biters. Each subject was asked to bite on custom supports made from semi-rigid water bottles covered with imprintable dental wax. The dental arches and bitemarks were then recorded using an intraoral scanner and dental impressions. Scan superimposition analysis was conducted using CloudCompare software, while resin casts were printed using a 3D printer and physically superimposed on the bitemark impressions by a blind operator, who was not involved in sample collection, bite test execution, prior cast acquisition, or CloudCompare analysis. Both superimposition techniques relied on the selection of 10 corresponding landmarks (on canines and central and lateral incisors of the upper and lower arches) between the dental arches and impressions. The digital superimposition showed an average concordance of 92.5% for the upper arch landmarks and 85% for the lower arch landmarks, with an overall average concordance of 88.8% for both arches combined. In contrast, the visual analysis of resin casts showed an average concordance of 77.5% for the upper arch and 76.7% for the lower arch, with an overall average of 77.1% for both arches combined. In the analysis performed using CloudCompare, the maxillary arch demonstrated the best superimposition, with 4 landmarks (R0, R1, R2, R5) consistently overlapping. The digital analysis outperformed the visual analysis in all four quadrants, particularly in the upper right arch compared to the lower left arch, thereby supporting the integration of digital techniques in forensic applications. Further studies are necessary to validate the digital technique on a larger sample, including subjects with different dental characteristics, bite dynamics, and varying types of supports and substrates.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较数字扫描和 3D 树脂模型的位痕分析。
虽然牙齿形态是独一无二的,但在个人识别中使用咬痕分析仍存在争议。为了准确再现和比较咬痕和牙弓的三维模型,建议使用口内三维扫描,这是临床牙科实践中常用的精确和稳定的数字印模。本研究旨在比较两种不同的咬痕分析技术:一种是基于牙型和病变数字扫描叠加的数字方法,另一种是基于3D打印印模和树脂铸模物理叠加的视觉方法。我们收集了 12 名志愿者(6 男 6 女)作为咬合样本,他们的平均年龄为 26 岁。每名受试者都被要求咬在由半硬质水瓶制成的定制支撑物上,支撑物上覆盖着可压印的牙蜡。然后使用口内扫描仪和牙模记录牙弓和咬痕。扫描叠加分析使用 CloudCompare 软件进行,而树脂铸模则使用 3D 打印机打印,并由盲人操作员在咬痕印模上进行物理叠加。两种叠加技术都需要在牙弓和印模之间选择 10 个相应的地标(上下牙弓的犬齿、中切牙和侧切牙)。数字叠加法显示,上牙弓地标的平均吻合度为 92.5%,下牙弓地标的平均吻合度为 85%,两个牙弓合计的总体平均吻合度为 88.8%。相比之下,树脂铸模的视觉分析显示,上牙弓的平均一致性为 77.5%,下牙弓的平均一致性为 76.7%,两个牙弓的总平均一致性为 77.1%。在使用 CloudCompare 进行的分析中,上颌牙弓的叠加效果最好,4 个地标(R0、R1、R2、R5)始终保持重叠。在所有四个象限中,数字分析都优于视觉分析,特别是右上牙弓与左下牙弓相比,从而支持了数字技术在法医应用中的整合。有必要进行进一步的研究,以便在更大的样本上验证数字技术,包括具有不同牙齿特征、咬合动态以及不同类型支撑物和基质的受试者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Forensic Odonto-Stomatology
Journal of Forensic Odonto-Stomatology Medicine-Pathology and Forensic Medicine
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: The Journal of Forensic Odonto-Stomatology is the official publication of the: INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION FOR FORENSIC ODONTO-STOMATOLOGY (I.O.F.O.S
期刊最新文献
A scoping review of websites for forensic odontology training programs. Analysis and comparison of tooth wear in late antiquity and early middle age in populations that lived in continental and coastal Croatia using digitized VistaMetrix method. Bitemark analysis comparing the use of digital scans and 3D resin casts. Correlation of spheno-occipital synchondrosis and mandibular condylar cortication with chronological age using computed tomography in Indian population- A cross-sectional study. Establishing legal threshold of 18-years based on the assessment of mandibular molars using three different methods - An observational study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1