Facial Approximation and Craniofacial Superimposition

Basic principles of stable isotope analysis in humanitarian forensic science

“…Mutilation typically involves destruction of facial features including dentition or complete decapitation and can extend to the removal of hands and feet. Decapitation rules out craniofacial comparisons and approximations [2,3] as well as dental examination while fingerprints-if available and recoverable-may not lead to an immediate identification if the victim's fingerprints have never been taken and entered into a database. Without other distinguishing features such as jewelry, clothing, or body art [4], identification of mutilated murder victims becomes nigh impossible using traditional investigative techniques.…”

Lip height estimation in a southern African sample

“…[2][3][4] Craniofacial superimposition overlays a number of antemortem images of a missing person with an unidentified skull, to assess their structural similarity. [5][6][7] Although this paper focusses on forensic applications of the relationship between the skull and the overlying soft tissues, this relationship is relevant to several medical fields. Insight from reference data about hard and soft tissue associations could benefit surgeons and orthodontists treating dentofacial deformities; for whom obtaining harmonious facial characteristics and functionality are important considerations during diagnosis and treatment.…”

Handbook on Craniofacial Superimposition

“…1 Introduction to Craniofacial Superimposition -Craniofacial superimposition is the term widely found in the literature, which refers to all the tasks related to this forensic identification technique (Ubelaker et al 1992;Yoshino et al 1995;Cattaneo 2007). In particular, the most recent studies confirm the suitability of this terminology (Ranson 2009;Ibáñez et al 2009aIbáñez et al , 2011Pickering and Bachman 2012;Stephan 2009). -The term arises as a means to differentiate between the forensic technique itself and the technical devices used to tackle the identification problem.…”

“…Although it has been established that the outer canthus is located at the same height as the malar tubercle, there is no consensus as to the distance of the outer canthus from the orbital wall. The distance has been published as 1 mm (Sills 2004), 3-5 mm (Balueva et al 2009;Angel 1978;Krogman and İşcan 1986;Stephan 2009), 5-7 mm (Wolff 1976;Rosenstein et al 2000), 8-10 mm (Couly et al 1976), and 13 mm ( Anastassov and van Damme 1996). Where the malar tubercle is absent, the outer canthus can be positioned 8-11 mm below the line of the frontozygomatic suture (Stewart 1983;Krogman and İşcan 1986;Wolff 1976).…”

“…Finally, CFS should not be confused with craniofacial identification either. It is important to recognize that the latter is used as an umbrella term, which includes both CFS and the very different technique of facial approximation 3 (Clement and Ranson 1998;Wilkinson 2009;Stephan 2009). Both methods are underpinned by the knowledge of human craniofacial anatomy.…”