Validity of forensic odontology identification by comparison of conventional dental radiographs: A scoping review

Interpretation, confidence and application of the standardised terms: Identified, Probable, Possible, Exclude and Insufficient in forensic odontology identification

Forensic odontology identification scales are used to express certainty of identifications of deceased persons. These standardized scales are assumed to convey unambiguous expert opinions and facilitate communication between forensic odontologists and end users. However, to date no studies have investigated how the experts interpret and use these scales. Forensic odontology identification scales are used to express certainty of identifications of deceased persons. These standardized scales are assumed to convey unambiguous expert opinions and facilitate communication between forensic odontologists and end users. However, to date no studies have investigated how the experts interpret and use these scales. This paper aims to examine the interpretation of the DVISYS forensic identification scale and choices of the levels in the scale subsequent to, and derived from, comparison of pairs of dental radiographs by extending the analysis of the data collected in the study by Page and Lain et. al. 2017. The studied variables: self-reported confidence, forced binary decision of match and non-match, choice of level in the DVISYS scale (Identified, Probable, Possible, Insufficient and Exclude) were further analysed in this study using mixed models for relationships between the choices of level in the identification scale and the fundamental beliefs of likelihood of identification. The results of this further analysis showed that the reported confidence of the decisions was correlated to the difficulty of cases, and as confidence decreased the use of less definitive terms ('Probable', 'Possible' and 'Insufficient') increased. 'Probable' and 'Possible' were used mainly in underlying beliefs below that of 'Identified' whereas 'Insufficient' was used mainly to convey a sublevel of 'Exclude'. The use of 'Insufficient' in this study was not consistent with the prescribed definition of the term. The participants of the original study were not aware of the difficulty grading of the cases nor were required to grade them, however the reported confidence was systematically correlated to difficulty. Furthermore, indicated confidence level was correlated with choice of level on the scale in general, but the interpretation of the definition and application of the terms varied. The findings reported here contribute to the foundational knowledge of factors governing the interpretation and application of the DVISYS forensic odontology identification scale and suggest that this scale may need to be modified.

Forensic odontology in DVI: current practice and recent advances

Forensic odontology frequently plays a significant role in identification of the victims of multi-fatality disasters, but not in all. It depends on adequate dental remains surviving the disaster and on the availability of dental records to be successful. This paper describes current practice in the techniques of identification in forensic odontology and outlines recent advances that are moving into the mainstream.Key PointsForensic odontology plays a key role in mass disaster victim identification (DVI) when good-quality antemortem (AM) dental records are available.Images including radiographs, computerized tomography (CT) data and three-dimensional (3D) scan data are considered more reliable AM records than written dental charts and odontograms.Interpretation, transcription and comparison of dental datasets are complex processes that should be undertaken only by trained dental professionals.The future of forensic odontology DVI techniques is likely to include the use of 3D datasets for comparison.