Author:
Cappella Annalisa,Palamenghi Andrea,Solazzo Riccardo,Mazzarelli Debora,Gibelli Daniele,Sforza Chiarella,Cattaneo Cristina
Abstract
AbstractIn forensic commingled contexts, when the disarticulation occurs uniquely at the atlantoaxial joint, the correct match of atlas and axis may lead to the desirable assembly of the entire body. Notwithstanding the importance of this joint in such scenarios, no study has so far explored three-dimensional (3D) methodologies to match these two adjoining bones. In the present study, we investigated the potential of re-associating atlas and axis through 3D–3D superimposition by testing their articular surfaces congruency in terms of point-to-point distance (Root Mean Square, RMS). We analysed vertebrae either from the same individual (match) and from different individuals (mismatch). The RMS distance values were assessed for both groups (matches and mismatches) and a threshold value was determined to discriminate matches with a sensitivity of 100%. The atlas and the corresponding axis from 41 documented skeletons (18 males and 23 females), in addition to unpaired elements (the atlas or the axis) from 5 individuals, were superimposed, resulting in 41 matches and 1851 mismatches (joining and non-joining elements). No sex-related significant differences were found in matches and mismatches (p = 0.270 and p = 0.210, respectively), allowing to pool together the two sexes in each group. RMS values ranged between 0.41 to 0.77 mm for matches and between 0.37 and 2.18 mm for mismatches. Significant differences were found comparing the two groups (p < 0.001) and the highest RMS of matches (0.77 mm) was used as the discriminative value that provided a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 41%. In conclusion, the 3D–3D superimposition of the atlanto-axial articular facets cannot be considered as a re-association method per se, but rather as a screening one. However, further research on the validation of the 3D approach and on its application to other joints might provide clues to the complex topic of the reassociation of crucial adjoining bones.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference56 articles.
1. Kerley, E. R. Special observations in skeletal identification. J. Forensic Sci. 17, 349–357 (1972).
2. Puerto, M. S., Egaña, S., Doretti, M. & Vullo, C. M. A multidisciplinary approach to commingled remains analysis: Anthropology, genetics, and background information. In Commingled Human Remains—Methods in Recovery, Analysis and Identification (eds. Adams, B. J. & Byrd, J. E.) 307–335 (Academic Press, 2014).
3. Egaña, S., Turner, S., Doretti, M., Bernardi, P. & Ginarte, A. Commingled remains and human rights investigations. In Recovery, Analysis, and Identification of Commingled Human Remains (eds. Adams, B. J. & Byrd, J. E.) 57–80 (Humana Press, 2008).
4. Yazedjian, L. & Kešetović, R. The application of traditional anthropological methods in a DNA-led identification process. In Recovery, Analysis, and Identification of Commingled Human Remains (eds. Adams, B. J. & Byrd, J. E.) 271–284 (Humana Press, 2008).
5. Klonowski, E. Forensic anthropology in bosnia and herzegovina. In Forensic Archaeology and Human Rights Violations (ed. Ferllini, R.) 148–169 (Charles C Thomas, 2007).