Worked Example Review in Human Identification and Dental Records

Introduction and Purpose

Forensic odontology plays a critical role in human identification where conventional identification methods are unavailable, compromised, or disputed. In the UK forensic and medico-legal environment, forensic odontologists must demonstrate not only technical competence in dental record comparison but also the ability to document, justify, and defend their findings in accordance with legal, ethical, and professional standards.

This Knowledge Providing Task (KPT) is designed to support learners at Level 7 postgraduate competency by allowing them to review a worked example / model answer that reflects the standard expected in real forensic casework. Rather than focusing on academic discussion, this task mirrors professional practice, including decision-making, documentation, interpretation of dental records, radiographic comparison, and evidential reasoning.

Learners will examine a model forensic dental identification report that has been annotated by an assessor, highlighting strengths, compliance with UK legislation, areas of professional judgement, and common pitfalls. This reflective approach helps learners internalise expectations for structure, depth, accuracy, and defensibility in forensic odontology case submissions.

Context of the Forensic Identification Case (Model Scenario)

The worked example is based on a simulated but vocationally realistic UK case involving suspected human remains recovered following a structural fire in a residential building in Greater Manchester. The remains are severely thermally damaged, rendering visual identification impossible and fingerprint recovery unsuccessful.

Police investigators request forensic odontology input under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, with the aim of establishing identity for legal, investigative, and humanitarian purposes.

Key contextual facts provided to the odontologist include:

• One set of fragmented craniofacial remains
• Partial mandible and maxilla with multiple restored teeth
• Ante-mortem dental records provided by an NHS dental practice
• Digital bitewing and panoramic radiographs
• Possible candidate identity: adult male, aged 35–45

The odontologist is instructed to conduct comparative dental identification and produce a report suitable for:

• Coroner review
• Police investigation
• Potential court disclosure under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA)

Model Forensic Odontology Report (Worked Example)

Examiner Details (Extract from Model Submission)

Examiner: Dr X (BDS, MSc, PgDFO)
Role: Forensic Odontologist (Independent Consultant)
Instruction Authority: Greater Manchester Police
Date of Examination: 12 June 2025
Location: GMP Mortuary Facility
Case Reference: GMP/FO/0625

Assessor Annotation:

• Clear professional identification
• Appropriate use of case reference
• Demonstrates traceability and accountability (GDC Standards)

Materials Examined

Material Type	Description
Post-mortem dental evidence	Fragmented maxilla and mandible with 21 teeth present
Radiographs (PM)	Digital periapical and panoramic reconstructions
Ante-mortem records	NHS dental charting (2018–2024), bitewings, OPG
Supporting documents	Dental treatment history, consent forms

Assessor Annotation:

• Comprehensive listing
• Meets disclosure expectations under CPIA
• Could improve by stating format (digital/hard copy)

Examination Methodology

The odontologist conducted a systematic dental comparison following UK-accepted forensic protocols:

• Visual examination under controlled lighting
• Tooth-by-tooth charting using FDI notation
• Radiographic comparison using shape, morphology, restorations, root structure
• Assessment of concordant and discordant features
• Exclusion of post-mortem artefacts caused by heat exposure

The methodology aligns with guidance from:

• British Association for Forensic Odontology (BAFO)
• Faculty of Forensic & Legal Medicine (FFLM)
• Forensic Science Regulator’s Codes of Practice (2023)

Assessor Annotation:

• Correct professional framework referenced
• Method demonstrates repeatability and transparency
• Avoids over-reliance on a single identifying feature.

Annotated Dental Comparison Analysis

Tooth-Specific Findings (Extract)

Tooth	AM Record	PM Findings	Interpretation
16	MOD composite	MOD composite, identical margins	Concordant
11	No restoration	Crown absent, heat loss	Neutral
36	Root canal + crown	Root canal + metal-ceramic crown	Strong concordance
48	Impacted	Impacted, identical angulation	Concordant

Assessor Annotation:

• Excellent use of comparative language
• Correct handling of thermally altered teeth
• Avoids definitive claims without sufficient features

Radiographic Concordance Evaluation

The odontologist identified 12 points of concordance, including:

• Root canal morphology
• Restoration shape and depth
• Crown-root ratio
• Sinus proximity patterns
• Unique restoration defects

No unexplained discrepancies were observed.

Assessor Annotation:

• Quantification strengthens evidential weight
• Correct distinction between explainable and unexplainable discrepancies
• Could reference error rates or limitations explicitly.

Evaluation of Identification Reliability and Limitations

The odontologist evaluated the strength of identification using a UK-accepted qualitative conclusion scale:

• Insufficient evidence
• Possible identification
• Probable identification
• Identification established

Based on the available evidence, the conclusion reached was:

“Identification Established”

This conclusion was justified due to:

• Multiple independent concordant features
• Absence of unexplained discrepancies
• High quality ante-mortem records
• Radiographic matches beyond chance probability

Limitations acknowledged:

• Thermal damage affecting enamel
• Missing anterior teeth
• Reliance on single AM source

Assessor Annotation:

• Balanced, defensible reasoning.
• Proper acknowledgment of limitations.
• Avoids absolute certainty language.

Documentation, Legal Compliance and Professional Accountability

The report demonstrates compliance with:

• Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021
• Data Protection Act 2018 (UK GDPR)
• Criminal Procedure Rules (CrimPR)
• GDC Standards for the Dental Team
• Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013

Key documentation strengths:

• Clear chain of custody
• Secure handling of dental records
• Objective, non-speculative language
• Audit-ready structure

Assessor Annotation:

• Strong vocational documentation
• Court-ready tone
• Suitable for expert witness disclosure

Assessor Summary Commentary

Strengths Observed

• Professional structure consistent with real forensic reports
• Accurate dental and radiographic interpretation
• Appropriate use of UK legal frameworks
• Clear differentiation between fact and opinion

Development Areas

• Explicit reference to peer review procedures
• More detailed explanation of exclusion criteria
• Expanded discussion on alternative identification methods (DNA, anthropology)

Overall Competency Judgement

Learner demonstrates Level 7 professional competence suitable for independent forensic odontology practice under supervision.

Learner Task

You are required to review the model forensic odontology submission provided above and complete the following vocational tasks:

• Identify how dental records and radiographs were assessed for human identification
• Explain how identification techniques were applied in a medico-legal context
• Evaluate how the odontologist justified reliability and managed limitations
• Reflect on documentation practices and legal compliance
• Identify at least three improvements you would implement in your own practice

Your response must be written from a professional forensic practitioner perspective, not an academic essay.

Submission Guidelines

• Format: Professional report review or reflective commentary
• Word Count: 3,500–4,500 words (indicative)
• Language: Formal UK forensic terminology
• Referencing: UK regulations and professional guidance only
• Evidence: Use examples directly from the model submission
• Plagiarism: Not permitted; originality required
• Assessment Focus:
  • Practical understanding
  • Decision-making justification
  • Legal and professional compliance
  • Vocational readiness