Epidermis and Enamel: Insights Into Gnawing Criticisms of Human Bitemark Evidence.

Critics describe forensic dentists' management of bitemark evidence as junk science with poor sensitivity and specificity and state that linkages to a biter are unfounded. Those vocal critics, supported by certain media, characterize odontologists' previous errors as egregious and petition government agencies to render bitemark evidence inadmissible. Odontologists acknowledge that some practitioners have made past mistakes. However, it does not logically follow that the errors of a few identify a systemic failure of bitemark analysis. Scrutiny of the contentious cases shows that most occurred 20 to 40 years ago. Since then, research has been ongoing and more conservative guidelines, standards, and terminology have been adopted so that past errors are no longer reflective of current safeguards. The authors recommend a comprehensive root analysis of problem cases to be used to determine all the factors that contributed to those previous problems. The legal community also shares responsibility for some of the past erroneous convictions. Currently, most proffered bitemark cases referred to odontologists do not reach courts because those forensic dentists dismiss them as unacceptable or insufficient for analysis. Most bitemark evidence cases have been properly managed by odontologists. Bitemark evidence and testimony remain relevant and have made significant contributions in the justice system.

An overview of epidemiology and common risk factors for oral squamous cell carcinoma.

Understanding the epidemiologic picture and the risk factors for oral cancer can help identify and treat patients at risk for oral cancers. Early diagnosis of an oral cancer continues to be important to achieving a favorable prognosis. Absent a diagnosis of oral/pharyngeal cancer, there clearly can-lot be an effective treatment plan. Discovering a potentially malignant or malignant lesion and through biopsy reaching a diagnosis for the lesion begins by performing an examination with the purpose of detecting oral/pharyngeal lesions. An oral cancer screening can be performed in less than five minutes without any expensive diagnostic aids. Despite the ease with which this exam can be performed and the noninvasive nature of the examination,most patients report that they have never had an oral cancer examination. Late stage diagnosis continues to be a common situation resulting in high rates of morbidity and mortality. Without early recognition it seems that the trend of late stage diagnosis will continue. Physicians, dentists, and other health care providers should be performing the oral cancer screening examination on a routine basis for all of their patients.Note: For the interested clinician, the author highly recommends an excellent comprehensive text on the subject of oral cancer. Sol Silverman's(with multiple contributors) The American Cancer Society's Atlas of Clinical Oncology Oral Cancer: Fifth Edition by BC Decker Publishers is an excellent overview of oral cancer covering in greater detail many of the subjects that could not be covered in this brief article. Additionally, there are excellent color photographs of the common presentations of oral malignancies that can be helpful in assessing oral/pharyngeal lesions.

Differential diagnosis: is it herpes or aphthous?

Recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) and recurrent intraoral herpes (RIH) are the two most commonly presenting oral lesions in the dental setting. It is critical that the oral health professional be able to accurately discriminate between these disorders. To facilitate the differential diagnosis between RAS and RIH, important components of assessment are discussed. These include: prodromal signs and symptoms, lesion location, and appearance of the initial and mature lesion. The comparative etiology, prevalence, pathogenesis, and treatment considerations for these lesions are presented. A familial case report is provided.