There are currently certain advocates for using a thermoplastic bite impression material for use in identifying missing children. An article by Titunik questions the value of this procedure without a database of mapped dentitions. In addition, children present unique and potentially limiting circumstances when using this technique. For example, there is ongoing growth and development of a child’s mouth that produces changes in tooth and oral structures. Also, decomposed remains of children present special dental identification challenges, such as teeth with resorbing roots, and developing permanent teeth which are often missing, leaving few teeth for comparison (in these cases dental radiographs would be preferable for identification purposes). While the author does not completely discourage the use of a thermoplastic material to record the anatomy and morphology of children’s dentition for potential forensic use, limitations to the technique when used with children should be understood. Other more conventional forms of dental information record keeping should be encouraged.
(Source: The Communicator, Connecticut State Dental Association, Fall 2004)
