Identification in single cases

Quality assurance

 

 

From IOFOS with advice from:

 

Drs. Torpet (Demark),  Verbiest ( Belgium ),  Grusd ( Norway ),  Richter ( Iceland ),  Grundmann ( Germany ),  Bernitz ( South Africa ),  Mörnstad ( Sweden ), and Vermylen ( Belgium )

 

Quality assurance guidelines were revised in 2005 by the IOFOS Executive after experiences in the Asian Tsunami identifications and discussions at the IOFOS meeting in Hong Kong in August 2005.

 

If you follow the procedures:

 

1. Black indicates required steps 

2. Blue indicates only recommended steps  (may be omitted or changed without further explanation)

1. General

1.      Each country/society may make more detailed requirements for quality assurance on a national level

2.      The forensic examination should describe oral and perioral details that can be used for identification, including assessment of sex and age

3.      As the death may be due to trauma or a violent crime any injuries to the teeth, jaws and perioral tissues must be described and related to what may have happened

4.      The forensic odontology report should be understood independently

2. Pre-examination

Make notes of the:

1.      Date and by whom you were asked to perform the examination

2.      Date and place where the body was found

3.      Type of event which is presumed by the police to be the cause of death

4.      Date and place of the autopsy

5.      Main findings of the autopsy and the cause of death as assessed by the forensic pathologist

6.      Date and place of the odontology examination and those present

7.      Name of the forensic pathologist and investigating police officer(s)

 

3. The post-mortem examination

  1. Note material available
  2. Assess the condition of the material
  3. Describe any injuries to the teeth, jaw bones and intra and peri-oral soft tissues
  4. Relate these injuries to the time and manner of death
  5. Describe how you obtain access to the teeth and jaws
  6. Describe if the material
    1. remains with the body
    2. is removed and where it is kept
  7. Describe for each tooth
    1. The clinical status: sound, carious, filled, crown, remaining root, lost post mortem or missing ante mortem
    2. Additional characteristic features of the tooth
    3. Material used in restorations
    4. Surface(s) involved

*Use a standard set of abbreviations and keep a list of abbreviations used

  1. Give a detailed description of prosthetic appliances
  2. Describe anatomical details
    1. Occlusion
    2. Attrition
    3. Tooth colour
    4. Periodontal condition
    5. Calculus
    6. Staining
    7. Any other detail which could be important for identification
  3. Radiographs taken and characteristics shown
  4. Photographs taken and characteristics shown
  5. Supplementary examinations and findings
  6. Give an estimate of the age and the method(s) used

4. Examination of the ante-mortem material of a missing person (records, radiographs, photographs, dental casts etc.

  1. Note material available
  2. Assess the quality of the material
  3. Note

a.       Full name

b.      Date of birth

c.       Address

d.      Sex

  1. Note when the person was reported missing
  2. Note the circumstances under which the person was reported missing
  3. Note dental information given by relatives or others
  4. Note the dentist(s) from whom the record(s) were obtained

a.       Name

b.      Address

c.       Telephone/fax no

d.      E-mail

  1. Describe each tooth
  2. Use the same nomenclature as for the post mortem examination
  3. Give a detailed description of prosthetic appliances
  4. Describe anatomical details

a.       Occlusion

b.      Attrition

c.       Tooth colour

d.      Periodontal condition

e.       Calculus

f.        Staining

g.       Any other detail which could be important for identification

  1. Note radiographs available and characteristics shown
  2. Note photographs available and characteristics shown
  3. Note additional examinations and findings
  4. Note age at time of disappearance

5. Comparison

1.      Search for non-concordant features

a.       If non-explicable -> exclude identity

b.      If explicable - > do not exclude identity, but continue to find      compatible features

2.      Find compatible features

a.       note for each tooth

6. Conclusions

  1. The comparison should end in a conclusion about the likelihood of identity
  2. The following conclusions may be used:
    1. Identity established - Less than 1:10 000 other person may fit the concordant details - This conclusion may stand alone as evidence of identity - The expert should feel absolutely confident that the identity is correct
    2. Identity probable – The conclusion needs to be supported by other evidence
    3. Identity possible – More than 1:100 persons may fit the details.  This conclusion needs to be supported with other strong evidence.
  3. Two dentists should agree upon the conclusion and sign the report

Edit 12/02/2008