English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

There is currently a serious problem with misuse and misunderstanding of bite mark evidence within the larger field of forensic odontology. Saks et al.1 heralds an impending ‘national dismantling of forensic odontology’. What the paper actually addresses is the very real problem of bite mark comparison, or matching, for purposes of suspect identification. Bite mark comparison, or matching or identification, is by no means the whole discipline of forensic odontology. There is valuable information that can and should be obtained from a bite mark, whether or not it can be, or is, used for comparison purposes.  Forensic odontology includes identification of human remains and age estimation as well as bite mark evidence. Many professionals, including forensic odontologists, confuse themselves and other professionals by mistakenly equating bite mark analysis with bite mark comparison, or matching, for purposes of suspect identification. This misuse of the terms is a serious problem.

Bite mark evidence: bite mark analysis is not the same as bite mark comparison or matching or identification