Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer

A description of the bite mark identification ability of alginate impression on students at Dental Faculty of Prof. Dr. Moestopo University



Abstract

Objective: Trying to explain the extent to which our students’ ability to identify, through dentition, a bite mark injury.Material and Methods: As many as 30 students in the Dental Faculty of Prof. Dr. Moestopo University involved in this study demonstrated their ability to identify traces left behind from the experimental bite mark of alginate impression. The data obtained will be tabulated to explain the subject's ability to identify the bite mark injury.Results: The data showed that the identification ability of subject of senior-semester students is lower than that of junior-semester students. The identification ability of the student decreases with the time elapsed since when the related lesson (dental anatomy) is given. Dental anatomy was given in the first semester and the lowest score of identification ability indeed achieved by subjects in the highest semester (senior students at semester eight involved in this program study).Conclusion: In this case, it is evident that repetition is an important factor in a learning process, and therefore, it is necessary to think of a way to do it appropriately in the curriculum of the dentist education program in our faculty.
Keywords: Forensic odontology Bitemark Tooth identification
Section

References

  1. Singh B. Palatal rugae-a finger print of oral cavity. Research
  2. & Reviews: J Dent Sci 2015;3: 1-3.
  3. Shaik K. Are tooth prints a hard tissue equivalence of
  4. finger print in mass disaster: a rationalized review. J
  5. Pharm Bioallied Sci 2017;9(suppl 1): s29-s33.
  6. Christopher V. Can dead man tooth do tell tales? tooth prints
  7. in forensic identification. J Forensic Dent Sci 2017;9: 47.
  8. Sugunakar RGS. Ameloglyphics can it aid in forensic
  9. identification. Indian J Dent Adv 2014;6: 1669-1673.
  10. Manjunath K, Sivapathasundharam B. Analysis of enamel
  11. rod end pattern at different levels of enamel and its significance
  12. in ameloglyphics. J Forensic Res 2014;5: 235.
  13. Krishan K, Karchan T, Garg AK. Dental evidence in forensic
  14. identification an overview, methodology and present
  15. status. Open Dent J 2015;9: 250-256.
  16. Pretty IA, Sweet D. A look at Forensic dentistry–part 1:
  17. The role of teeth in the determination of human identity.
  18. Br Dent J 2001;7: 190.
  19. Macdonald DG. Bite mark recognition and interpretation.
  20. J Forensic Sci Soc 1974;14: 229-233.
  21. Verma AK. The role of dental expert in forensic odontology.
  22. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2014;15: 2-4.
  23. Furness J. A New Method for the identification of
  24. teeth marks in cases of assault and homicide. Br Dent J
  25. ;124: 261-267.
  26. Kaur S. Analysis and identification of bite marks in forensic
  27. casework. Oral Health Dent Manag 2013;12: 500.
  28. MacDonald DG. Bite mark recognition and interpretation.
  29. J Forensic Sci Soc 1974;14: 229-233.
  30. Sweet D, Pretty IA. A look at forensic dentistry-part 2:
  31. teeth as a weapons of violence-identification of bite mark
  32. perpetrators. Br Dent J 2001;190: 415-418.
  33. Layton JJ. Identification from a bite mark in cheese.
  34. J Forensic Sci Soc 1966;6: 76-80.
  35. Hamrun N, Rachman SA. Measuring sodium alginate
  36. content of brown algae species padina sp. as the basic
  37. matter for making dental impression material (irreversiblehydrocolloid impression material). J Dentomaxillofac Sci
  38. ;1: 129-133.
  39. Iqony RA, Kristiani S, Budi AT. Electronic dental record
  40. data base as a storage media of antemortem data based on
  41. website. Dent Forensic J 2016;3: 12-23.
  42. Nandini V, Verkatesh KV, Nair CK. Alginate impression:
  43. a practical perspective. J Conserv Dent 2008;11: 37-41.
  44. Rubel BS. Impression materials: a comparative review of
  45. impression materials mostly used in restorative dentistry.
  46. Den Clin North Am 2007;51: 629-642.
  47. Murata H. Physical properties and compatibility with
  48. dental stones of current alginate impression materials.
  49. J Oral Rehab 2004;31: 1115-1122.
  50. Giordano R. Impression materials: basic properties.
  51. Gen Dent 2004;48: 510-516.
  52. Wadhwa SS. The effect of pouring time on the dimensional
  53. accuracy of cast made from different irreversible
  54. hydrocolloid impression materials. Contemp Clin Dent
  55. ;4: 313-318.
  56. Imbery TA. Accuracy and dimensional stability of extendedpour
  57. and conventional alginate impression materials. J
  58. Am Dent Assoc 2010;141: 32-39.
  59. Rudd KD, Morrow RM, Strunk RR. Accurate alginate
  60. impression. J Prosthet Dent 1969;22: 294-300.
  61. Fairchild JM. Versatile uses for alginate impression
  62. material. J Prosthet Dent 1974;31: 266-269.
  63. Walker MP. Dimensional change over time of extended
  64. storage alginate impression materials. Angle Orthod
  65. ;80: 1110-1115.
  66. Sweet D, Bowers CM. Accuracy of bite mark overlays:
  67. a comparison of five common methods to produce
  68. exemplars from a suspect’s dentition. J Forensic Sci
  69. ;43: 362-367.
  70. Verma AK, Kumar S, Bhattacharya S. Identification of
  71. a person with the help of bite mark analysis. J Oral Biol
  72. & Craniofacial Res 2013;3: 88-91.

How to Cite

Sianita, P. P. (2018). A description of the bite mark identification ability of alginate impression on students at Dental Faculty of Prof. Dr. Moestopo University. Journal of Dentomaxillofacial Science, 3(2), 100–107. https://doi.org/10.15562/jdmfs.v3i2.759
ACM ACS APA ABNT Chicago Harvard IEEE MLA Turabian Vancouver
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

HTML
439

Total
739

Share

Search Panel

Pricillia P. Sianita
Google Scholar
Pubmed
JDMFS Journal