ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2026
Distinguishing actual from 3D-printed bite marks in forensic odontology: accuracy and reliability of digital analysis.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deep Learning-Based Panoramic Radiograph Retrieval from Antemortem Images for Forensic Identification.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
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
The convenience of gathering evidence is enhanced by three-dimensional (3D) scanner and printer technologies, however they also raise the risk of creating false evidence. The purpose of this study is to analyze the accuracy of bite marks obtained from digital dental models using quantitative methodologies, as well as to investigate the potential for bite marks obtained from models manufactured using 3D printing technology to produce false evidence. Between the ages of 18 and 25, 15 volunteers who had not undergone orthodontic treatment and had a class I skeletal relationship were included in the study and maxillary impressions were taken with an intraoral scanner (IOS). Maxillary models were produced with a 3D printer from digital impressions. Using dental silicone and dental wax materials often used by forensic odontologists, bite marks were obtained from both volunteers and their 3D models. Similarity analysis of bite marks was performed using the superimposition method using a 3D surface matching software program (Geomagic Control X 2020; 3D System). Following superimposition, RMS (Root Mean Square) values were calculated and utilized for comparison. The bite marks from participants differed significantly from those from 3D printed models (P < .05). While bite marks obtained from 3D printed models first looked to be identical to the actual marks, digital scanning and superimposition analysis revealed significant variances. Advancements in 3D printing technology, as well as their ease of use, may enhance the possibility of evidence fabrication. While this study demonstrates that there are discernible distinctions between actual bite marks and artificials, consistent techniques are required to improve the trustworthiness of digital data in forensic odontology.
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.