ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2024
Validity of postmortem computed tomography for use in forensic odontology identification casework.
Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Accuracy and confidence in human dental identification using panoramic radiographs: the role of observer experience.The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology · 2026Article
- The current state of forensic imaging - recommended radiological tools and international guidelines.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Review
- E-dentification, the use of teledentistry for remote personal forensic identification in forensic odontology: a Queensland experience.Forensic sciences research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Forensic Odontology (FO) identification compares antemortem (AM) and postmortem (PM) dental datasets and is widely accepted as a primary identifier. Traditionally, a PM dental examination is undertaken in the same manner as a dental examination conducted for a living patient. Recently, the increased forensic application of computed tomography (CT) offers an alternative source of PM data. While charting from PMCT is widely accepted as less accurate, the impact on reconciliation is unknown. This study aims to determine if reconciliation outcome differs when PM dental data is collected from PMCT, compared with conventional PM examination. PMCT data was reviewed for 21 cases previously completed using conventional PM dental examination. Operators blinded to original identification outcomes charted from CT images before comparing to AM data to form an opinion regarding identity. Opinions formed were compared with original identification outcomes. Differences in PM dental charting between the two methods and the evidentiary value of AM and PM datasets were assessed to determine driving factors of differences in identification outcome. Compared to conventional PM dental examination, PMCT examination resulted in similar or less certain identification outcomes. Discrepancies in outcome were driven by the quality of AM and PM datasets rather than inaccuracies in charting from PMCT. Based on the results of this study, both conventional and PMCT methods of PM dental examination can reach similar identification outcomes. However, operators remained more certain in establishing identity when conducting conventional PM dental examinations especially when AM data was lacking.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.