The Efficiency of an X-Ray Screening System at a Mass Disaster

Abstract

This is a study to determine the efficiency and efficacy of using an X-ray security screening system to locate both dental fragments and other foreign objects that might be commingled with fragmented remains in a mass disaster. A controlled study by the Pennsylvania Dental Identification Team (PADIT) revealed that a manual examination of simulated body bags containing commingled dental parts and foreign objects by a team of trained forensic odontologists was very effective in locating dental fragments and in finding foreign objects. Although this was effective, it was not efficient, because it was very time consuming. With the use of an X-ray security screening system, the time factor could be reduced. This study also revealed that even though this sophisticated equipment could reduce the time factor in locating commingled dental and foreign objects, a forensic odontologist should be utilized to be most effective.

Contribution of postmortem multidetector CT scanning to identification of the deceased in a mass disaster: Experience gained from the 2009 Victorian bushfires

“…This proved to be a very useful technique given that bodies were often severely blackened and physical features obscured on visual inspection. It is an extension to the previously reported X-ray security screening system used successfully to locate both dental fragments and other foreign objects commingled with fragmented remains [23].…”

Autopsy and Identification Techniques

“…Radiology could be complementary -or even replace -the limited internal autopsy which provided very little helpful information as to validly evaluate anatomical characteristics under these difficult conditions (Hirsch & Shaler, 2002). An important place in the PM information gathering was located at the final desk ( numbered samples with the given body number ; (iii) assuring quality control of the dental X-rays (Goodman & Edelson, 2002;Kieser et al, 2006) and (iv) quality control of all documents.…”

“…Each disaster is different and the approach adapted accordingly. The final identification results depend mainly on the presence and quality of the AM information (physical evidence such as X-rays elements (Goodman & Edelson, 2002;Messmer, 1982;Rutty et al, 2007), fingerprints if possible 5 , dental records (De Valck, 2006;Kieser et al, 2006;Poisson et al, 2003) and of course DNA (Gill, 2006). In 2006 Perrier mentioned -when referring to the Phuket identifications -the effectiveness of the following methods: 73% of identification by odontology, 24% by dactyloscopy and 3% by DNA analysis (Perrier et al, 2006).…”

The Use of Radiology in Mass Fatality Events

“…Physical examination of such remains, particularly in cases of fire damage where there is a uniformity of discoloration of all samples retrieved, is both difficult and time-consuming. In such cases, radiological examination can prove useful both in determining the presence of one or more individuals, but also in identifying and locating small body parts, especially teeth, which may otherwise be overlooked in the absence of a thorough and time-consuming fingertip search (Goodman and Edelson 2002;Viner et al 1998;Viner and Lichtenstein 2011). Its use for this purpose in forensic archaeological investigations is discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.…”

“…Radiology is used extensively in anthropological and odontological assessment of postmortem and antemortem radiographs, records, or other images for concordance because they represent an excellent source of data for comparison of anatomical features (Figures 5-2A and 5-2B). Many specific cases have been reported in which radiology has played the leading role in the identification of human remains (Goodman and Edelson 2002;Greulich and Pyle 1959;Viner and Lichtenstein 2011). Binda et al (1999) even report on a case where radiology proved to be more accurate than DNA.…”