Al-Amad S H, Clement J G, McCullough M J, Morales A, Hill A J
Oral Anatomy, Medicine and Surgery. School of Dental Science. University of Melbourne, Australia.
J Forensic Odontostomatol. 2007 Jun;25(1):23-9.
Human identification, by comparing dental characteristics, is considered to be one of the most reliable, accurate and rapid methods of resolving the identity of visually un-identifiable deceased persons. In recent decades computer programs have evolved to aid odontologists by suggesting records that have similar dental features. The aim of the present study was to compare two of those programs; Disaster And Victim IDentification (DAVID) and WinID3 in terms of effectiveness, accuracy and speed of data entry and to further compare them with the efficiency of the classical method of manually matching postmortem and antemortem dental records. An open disaster was simulated whereby 52 fragmented remains made of acrylic replicas and 77 provisional victims were represented on Interpol F2 postmortem and antemortem forms. The results assessed were the first seven possible matches made by each program. Manual matching of dental characteristics performed better than both programs (P<0.001) yielding 29 identifications. Eleven and six positive matches were the result of the DAVID and the WinID3 programs respectively (P=0.185). Data entry was quicker for WinID3. It was concluded that both programs are still not as accurate as the time-consuming manual matching method. The difference in performance between the DAVID and the WinID3 programs was attributed to the inclusion of more comparable dental characteristics, the inclusion of the type of dentition (deciduous or permanent) and the weighting of those characteristics by the DAVID program.
通过比较牙齿特征进行人类身份识别，被认为是解决无法通过视觉辨认的死者身份问题最可靠、准确且快速的方法之一。近几十年来，计算机程序不断发展，通过推荐具有相似牙齿特征的记录来协助牙科学者。本研究的目的是比较其中两个程序；灾难与受害者身份识别（DAVID）和WinID3在有效性、准确性以及数据录入速度方面的表现，并进一步将它们与手动匹配死后和生前牙齿记录的传统方法的效率进行比较。模拟了一场开放性灾难，在国际刑警组织F2死后和生前表格上呈现了由丙烯酸复制品制成的52具碎尸残骸以及77名假定受害者。评估的结果是每个程序得出的前七个可能匹配项。牙齿特征的手动匹配比两个程序都表现得更好（P<0.001），得出了29个身份识别结果。DAVID程序和WinID3程序分别得出了11个和6个阳性匹配结果（P = 0.185）。WinID3的数据录入更快。得出的结论是，两个程序仍然不如耗时的手动匹配方法准确。DAVID程序和WinID3程序之间表现的差异归因于DAVID程序纳入了更多可比较的牙齿特征、牙列类型（乳牙或恒牙）以及对这些特征的加权。
