Forensic dentistry case book 9: The "bite mark" that caused confusion

Forensic value of orthodontic records for human identification: a systematic review

“…The studies were published between 2002 and 2021. Twelve articles (75%) were reported from Brazil (Paranhos, Caldas, Iwashita, Scanavini, & Daruge Júnior, 2008;Silva Daruge Júnior, Pereira, de Almeida, & de Oliveira, 2008;Caputo, Reis, Silveira, Guimarães, & Silva 2011;Da Silva, Chaves, Paranhos, Lenza, & Daruge Junior, 2011;Terada et al, 2014;Belotti et al, 2015;Argollo, Argollo de Argollo & Marques, 2017;Silva et al, 2017;Baldim, de Almeida, Delwing, & Tinoco, 2019;Freire, Bento, Rabello, & Santiago, 2019;Picoli et al, 2019;Correia et al, 2021), two (12.5%) from the USA (Goodman & Hilmmerberger, 2002;Lewis, Shiroma, Guenthner, & Dunn., 2004), and one (6.25%) from South Africa (Bernitz & Solomon, 2014). One study did not specify the origin of the case (Cardoza & Wood, 2015).…”

“…One study did not specify the origin of the case (Cardoza & Wood, 2015). Ten studies (62.5%) were published in English (Goodman & Hilmmerberger, 2002;Lewis et al, 2004;Caputo et al, 2011;Da Silva et al, 2011;Bernitz & Solomon, 2014;Terada et al, 2014;Cardoza & Wood, 2015;Silva et al, 2017;Picoli et al, 2019;Correia et al, 2021) and six (37.5%) in Portuguese (Paranhos et al, 2008;Silva et al, 2008;Belotti et al, 2015;Argollo et al, 2017;Baldin et al, 2019;Freire et al, 2019). There was no mention of guidelines for structuring case Acta Scientiarum.…”

“…Health Sciences, v. 46, e64703, 2024 reports, such as Case Report Guidelines (CARE). Two studies described ethical aspects (Bernitz & Solomon, 2014;Picoli et al, 2019). Thirteen articles reported each a single case of human identification using orthodontic records, one showed a series of five cases (one eligible case within) (Cardoza & Wood, 2015), one described a mass disaster case (one eligible case within) (Lewis et al, 2004), and one reported two cases (one eligible case within) (Belotti et al, 2015) (Table 2).…”