Linked Life Data

11714165

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/11714165

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
6
pubmed:dateCreated
2001-11-20
pubmed:abstractText
The central dogma of bite mark analysis is based upon two assumptions. The first is that human teeth are unique, and the second is that sufficient detail of the uniqueness is rendered during the biting process to enable identification. Both of these assumptions have been challenged over recent years, and a healthy scientific skepticism surrounding bite mark analysis has developed. The case presented features two suspects whose dental arrangement was similar and, when compared to the bite mark, both demonstrated consistent features. Within a closed population of possible biters, one of the two suspects was responsible for the injury. The case is illustrated with photographic and overlay detail of the suspect's teeth and demonstrates the complexity of such cases. The authors call for greater caution when drawing conclusions from such cases and highlight the need for further research into the replication of dental features on human skin.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Nov
pubmed:issn
0022-1198
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
46
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
1487-91
pubmed:dateRevised
2004-11-17
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2001
pubmed:articleTitle
Lack of dental uniqueness between two bite mark suspects.
pubmed:affiliation
Faculty of Medicine, University of Liverpool, England.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Case Reports