Page Mark, Taylor Jane, Blenkin Matt
School of Health Sciences, University of Newcastle, Ourimbah, NSW, Australia.
J Forensic Sci. 2013 May;58(3):664-72. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.12108. Epub 2013 Mar 12.
This study attempts to characterize the nature of disagreement among odontologists in determining the fundamental properties of suspected bitemark injuries. Fifteen odontologists were asked to freely comment on six images of supposed bitemarks. Qualitative analysis using a grounded theory approach revealed that practitioner agreement was at best fair, with wide-ranging opinions on the origin, circumstance, and characteristics of the wound given for all six images. More experienced practitioners (>10 years) tended to agree with each other less than those who had 10 years or less experience in forensic odontology. The differences in opinions can be at least partly accounted for by the inconsistent nature of approaches used by different practitioners in assessing bitemark evidence. The results of this study indicate that more definitive guidelines as to the assessment of bitemarks as patterned injuries should be developed to ensure the highest possible level of practitioner agreement.
本研究试图描述牙科学者在确定疑似咬痕损伤的基本特征时存在的分歧的性质。15位牙科学者被要求对6张疑似咬痕的图片发表自由评论。采用扎根理论方法进行的定性分析表明，从业者之间的一致性充其量只是一般，对于所有6张图片，他们对伤口的起源、情况和特征都有广泛的意见。经验更丰富的从业者（超过10年）之间的意见一致性往往低于那些法医牙科学经验在10年或以下的从业者。不同从业者在评估咬痕证据时所采用方法的不一致性，至少可以部分解释意见上的差异。本研究结果表明，应制定更明确的关于将咬痕评估为形态损伤的指南，以确保从业者之间达成尽可能高的一致性。
