Kiran Ramya, Chapman James, Tennant Marc, Forrest Alexander, Walsh Laurence J
School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University, Bruce Highway, Rockhampton, 4701, Australia.
School of Science, RMIT University, GPO Box 2476, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
J Forensic Sci. 2019 Jan;64(1):254-259. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.13851. Epub 2018 Jul 10.
Victim identification using dental records involves antemortem and postmortem comparison of dental charts. Since dental restorations may be part of such records, identifying them accurately is critical. The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic reliability and validity of two optical methods for identifying tooth-colored restorations (digital imaging fiber optic transillumination (DiFOTI) using near infrared light, and fluorescence-aided identification of restorations (FAIR)) with conventional diagnostic methods. Four examiners identified and charted tooth-colored restorations in three sets of typodonts on the bench using conventional visual and tactile examination, DiFOTI (DIAGNOcam™) and FAIR. All examinations were repeated after 4 weeks. Both the sensitivity (95%) and specificity (97%) of the FAIR method were significantly higher than those for DiFOTI (82% and 82%) and for conventional inspection (71% and 82%). In conclusion, FAIR method performed better than conventional examination and DiFOTI, and was more reliable for identifying tooth-colored restorations.
利用牙科记录进行受害者身份识别涉及生前和死后牙科图表的比对。由于牙齿修复体可能是此类记录的一部分，准确识别它们至关重要。本研究的目的是将两种用于识别牙齿颜色修复体的光学方法（使用近红外光的数字成像光纤透照法（DiFOTI）和修复体荧光辅助识别法（FAIR））的诊断可靠性和有效性与传统诊断方法进行比较。四名检查者在实验台上使用传统视觉和触觉检查、DiFOTI（DIAGNOcam™）和FAIR对三组全口牙齿模型上的牙齿颜色修复体进行识别和记录。4周后重复所有检查。FAIR方法的敏感性（95%）和特异性（97%）均显著高于DiFOTI（82%和82%）和传统检查（71%和82%）。总之，FAIR方法比传统检查和DiFOTI表现更好，在识别牙齿颜色修复体方面更可靠。
