The preliminary research of intercanine distance between humans and dogs by bite mark analysis

Lee Deng Yeong, Murnisari Dardjan, Sri Susilawati, Fahmi Oscandar, Zainul Ahmad Rajion

Abstract


Introduction: Bite marks between humans and dogs have a similar appearance and it becomes a challenge study for the dentist and forensic odontologists to discern between them. Intercanine distance (ICD) is one of the parameters to identify the biter species in humans and animals. The aim of this study was to analyse the differences of the ICD between humans and dogs. Methods: The analytical study design was done by measuring the ICD of bite marks in 65 humans and 22 dogs selected by purposive non-random sampling method with the inclusion criteria for human samples, students of Faculty of Dentistry Universitas Padjadjaran between 18 to 28 years old, canine occlusal relationship class I, presence of both intact canine teeth in each jaw, normal overjet and no diastema at the anterior teeth; and for dog samples, mesaticephalic skull shaped, having four intact canine teeth, and located across animal centres in Bandung. The gender and dental arch shape in humans and dogs were excluded. Human bite registrations were taken using wax pieces, while dog anterior teeth impressions were taken which were then casted with dental stone. The ICD was then measured using a digital vernier caliper with 0.01 mm resolution. The inter- and intra-observer variability calibrations were done before the sample measurements. The Mann-Whitney U statistical analysis was done to determine the significance between ICD of humans and dogs (p<0.05). Ethical clearance (No.1225/UN6.KEP/EC/2018) was obtained for both groups prior research study. Results: The statistical analytic showed, (p=0.0002) between humans and small and large sized dogs; (p=0.5093) for medium sized dogs in the maxillary. In the mandibula, showed (p=0.0002) between humans and small and large sized dogs; (p=0.0003) for medium sized dogs. Conclusion: The ICD analysed in this study were concluded to be different between humans and dogs (all sizes) in mandibular, humans and dogs (small and large sized) in maxillary. Conversely, the ICD between humans and medium sized dogs in maxillary were similar.


Keywords


human bite mark; dog bite mark; intercanine distance

Full Text:

PDF

References


Touré G, Angoulangouli G, Méningaud JP. Epidemiology and classification of dog bite injuries to the face: A prospective study of 108 patients. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2015;68(5):654–8.

Ellis JL, Thomason J, Kebreab E, Zubair K, France J. Cranial dimensions and forces of biting in the domestic dog. J Anat. 2009;214(3):362–73.

Georgevsky D, Carrasco JJ, Valenzuela M, McGreevy PD. Domestic dog skull diversity across breeds, breed groupings, and genetic clusters. J Vet Behav. 2013;9(5):228–34.

Esmaeilzadeh F, Rajabi A, Vahedi S, Shamsadiny M, Ghojogh MG, Hatam N. Epidemiology of animal bites and factors associated with delays in initiating post-exposure prophylaxis for rabies prevention among animal bite cases: A population-based study. J Prev Med Public Heal. 2017;50(3):210–6.

Sharma S, Agarwal A, Khan A, Ingle G. Prevalence of dog bites in rural and urban slums of Delhi: A community-based study. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2016;6(2):115–9.

Pretty I, Turnbull M. Lack of dental uniqueness between two bite mark suspects. J Forensic Sci. 2001;46(6):1487–91.

Gorea RK, Jasuja OP, Abuderman AA, Gorea A. Bite marks on skin and clay: A comparative analysis. Egypt J Forensic Sci. 2014;4(4):124–8.

Tedeschi-Oliveira S V., Trigueiro M, Oliveira RN, Melani RFH. Intercanine distance in the analysis of bite marks: A comparison of human and domestic dog dental arches. J Forensic Odontostomatol. 2011;29(1):30–6.

Souviron R, Haller L. Bite mark evidence: bite mark analysis is not the same as bite mark comparison or matching or identification. J Law Biosci. 2017;4(3):617–22.

Manas B, Nilesh P, Manika A, Betina C. Bite Marks - Revisited. J Forensic Sci Criminol. 2016;4(5):1–6.

Kashyap B, Anand S, Reddy S, Sahukar SB, Supriya N, Pasupuleti S. Comparison of the bite mark pattern and intercanine distance between humans and dogs. J Forensic Dent Sci. 2015;7(3):175–9.

Adamek A, Minch L, Kawala B, Międzykłowa S, Przegląd Piśmiennictwa –. Intercanine width – review of the literature. Dent Med Probl. 2015 Jan 1;52(3):336–40.

Baszak J, Walawska A, Walawska B. Clinical importance of the mandibular intercanine distance – a literature review. Othod Forum. 2015;11:230–7.

Bernitz H, Bernitz Z, Steenkamp G, Blumenthal R, Stols G. The individualisation of a dog bite mark: A case study highlighting the bite mark analysis, with emphasis on differences between dog and human bite marks. Int J Legal Med. 2012;126(3):441–6.

Stan F. Morphological particularities of the teeth crown in golden jackal (canis aureus moreoticus). Sci Work Ser C Vet Med. 2016;62(2):44–51.

Paulino V, Paredes V, Gandia JL, Cibrian R. Prediction of arch length based on intercanine width. Eur J Orthod. 2008;30(3):295–8.

Heiser W, Richter M, Niederwanger A, Neunteufel N, Kulmere S. Association of the canine guidance angle with maxillary and mandibular intercanine widths and anterior alignment relapse: Extraction vs nonextraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2008;133(5):669–80.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24198/pjd.vol33no2.26584

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Visitor Stat

Creative Commons License
Padjadjaran Journal of Dentistry is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License