ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluating dental student competency in forensic rugoscopy for human identification.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rugoscopy is a recognized method for human identification. Its reliability, however, may be compromised when general dentists with limited forensic training perform identification. Evaluating the role of future practitioners-dental students-is essential to address this competency gap. This study assessed the ability of dental students in recognizing and interpreting palatal rugae patterns for forensic identification. Fifty-four final-year dental students were evaluators. Forty maxillary casts (10 pre-orthodontic, 30 post-orthodontic) were used. All casts were duplicated and modified to retain only the palatal rugae area, with all teeth removed to prevent dental feature-based recognition. Participants matched each Set 1 cast to one in Set 2. The procedure was repeated after one week to determine test-retest reliability, assessed using prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK). The mean accuracy for rugoscopy-based identification was 83.06% (± 15.49%), with an average time of 1.37 (± 0.34) minutes per matching. Reliability ranged from substantial to almost perfect, showing agreement rates between 74.07% and 96.30%. This simulated exercise demonstrated that trained dental students could achieve good accuracy and reliability in identifying individuals based on palatal rugae patterns. Consequently, trained dental students may play a valuable supportive role in forensic identification tasks when specialized forensic odontologists are unavailable. Further research is recommended to establish standardized criteria to improve both accuracy and reliability.
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.