Authors
Dr. Priyanka Madhavan, Dr. Sudeendra Prabhu, Dr. Vishnu Radje, Syed Mohammed Miqdad
Abstract
Forensic Odontology is a very interesting branch of the Forensic Sciences that involves the usage of dental sciences in the identifying the dead individuals. Stereolithography is an evolving tool for finding the victims and deceased individuals in the branch of the forensic odontology. It’s a type of the 3D printing procedure which is being aided for forming the models, patterns, etc., by using a photochemical process. In this process, light causes development of polymers. This review highlights the history, principle, and application, cases proven with stereolithographic printing in the field of forensics, its advantages and drawbacks. Keywords: Forensic Odontology, Stereolithography, 3D Printing, Victim Identification, Facial Reconstruction.
Introduction
Additive manufacturing is a technique wherein layer-by-layer fabrication of complex 3D structures with an extensive range of materials. SLA (Stereolithography) is one form of the additive manufacturing procedure that has the capability to create structures with advanced and complex geometry, composition, and functions (Wallin et al., 2018). It is the developing tool for identifying victims and deceased individuals in the field of forensics. This type of technology is used for fabricating models, patterns, etc., by using a photochemical process, where the polymer is developed using light (Martin et al., 2015). This article is hereby giving an overview of stereolithography, its history, parts, working, applications in forensic odontology, and its advantages and drawbacks.
History
In 1981, Dr. Hideo Kodama first developed SLA. He viewed it as a substitute for holographic techniques. It’s a rapid and cheaper method of recreating models in 3D space (Kodama, 1981). In 1986, Charles W. Hull patented the first commercially available SLA printer, and it was known as the Second Generation Stereolithography. A 3D object is formed from a type of material that is capable of solidifying upon exposure to ultraviolet radiation. The formation is a layer-by-layer process. As an outcome of the natural adhesive property of the polymer, the non-transformed layers typically stick to the previously formed layer. With advancement, SLA has surpassed its own application of prototyping and now it can be used in manufacturing structures with highly complex geometries (Hull, 1984).
Tumbleston et al, (2015), developed third-generation stereolithography to overcome the shortcomings of second-generation SLA. The third generation SLA has a greater printing speed as compared to the previous approach.
Principle of Stereolithography
SLA works under the principle of photopolymerization. It’s a technique by which the ultra-violet light activates the initiators in the liquid monomer and converts it into a solid polymer by the establishment of carbon bonds. It’s an irreversible process and the solid polymer formed cannot be converted to a liquid monomer (Hull, 1984).
References
Baier, Waltraud, and Carolyn Rando. “Developing the Use of Structure-from-Motion in Mass Grave Documentation.” Forensic Science International, vol. 261, 2016, pp. 19–25., doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.12.008.
Biggs, Mike, and Phil Marsden. “Dental Identification Using 3D Printed Teeth Following a Mass Fatality Incident.” Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging, vol. 18, 2019, pp. 1–3. Crossref, doi:10.1016/j.jofri.2019.07.001.
Birbara, Nicolette S., et al. “3D Modelling and Printing Technology to Produce Patient-Specific 3D Models.” Heart, Lung and Circulation, vol. 28, no. 2, 2019, pp. 302–13. Crossref, doi:10.1016/j.hlc.2017.10.017.
Bücking, Thore M., et al. “From Medical Imaging Data to 3D Printed Anatomical Models.” PLOS ONE, edited by Han-Chiao Isaac Chen, vol. 12, no. 5, 2017, p. e0178540. Crossref, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0178540.
Carew, Rachael M., and David Errickson. “Imaging in Forensic Science: Five Years On.” Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging, vol. 16, 2019, pp. 24–33. Crossref, doi:10.1016/j.jofri.2019.01.002.
Chaudhary, Roshan K, et al. “Current and Evolving Applications of Three-Dimensional Printing in Forensic Odontology: A Review.” International Journal of Forensic Odontology, vol. 3, no. 2, 2018, p. 59. Crossref, doi:10.4103/ijfo.ijfo_28_18.
Cuperus, Anne Margreet R., et al. “Dental Models Made with an Intraoral Scanner: A Validation Study.” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 142, no. 3, 2012, pp. 308–13. Crossref, doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.03.031.
Ebert, Lars Chr., et al. “Getting in Touch—3D Printing in Forensic Imaging.” Forensic Science International, vol. 211, no. 1–3, 2011, pp. e1–6. Crossref, doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.04.022.
Forest, Alex, et al. “Changing Radiological Techniques in Forensic Odontology Practice in Queensland.” Griffith Research Online, 2012, research-repository.griffith.edu.au/handle/10072/53685.
Haleem, Abid, and Mohd Javaid. “Role of CT and MRI in the Design and Development of Orthopaedic Model Using Additive Manufacturing.” Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma, vol. 9, no. 3, 2018, pp. 213–17. Crossref, doi:10.1016/j.jcot.2018.07.002.
Hull, Charles W. "Apparatus for production of Three-Dimensional Objects by Stereolithography." United States Patent, Appl., No. 638905, Filed (1984).
Kodama, Hideo. “Automatic Method for Fabricating a Three‐dimensional Plastic Model with Photo‐hardening Polymer.” Review of Scientific Instruments, vol. 52, no. 11, 1981, pp. 1770–73. Crossref, doi:10.1063/1.1136492.
Komar, Debra A., et al. “The Use of a 3-D Laser Scanner to Document Ephemeral Evidence at Crime Scenes and Postmortem Examinations.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 57, no. 1, 2011, pp. 188–91. Crossref, doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01915.x.
Martin, Joshua J., et al. “Designing Bioinspired Composite Reinforcement Architectures via 3D Magnetic Printing.” Nature Communications, vol. 6, no. 1, 2015. Crossref, doi:10.1038/ncomms9641.
Mertz, Curtis, and Paul Stimson. “Bite Mark Techniques and Terminology.” Forensic Dentistry, 1997, doi:10.1201/9781420048315.ch7.
Naru, A. S., and E. Dykes. “The Use of a Digital Imaging Technique to Aid Bite Mark Analysis.” Science & Justice, vol. 36, no. 1, 1996, pp. 47–50. Crossref, doi:10.1016/s1355-0306(96)72554-6.
Puri, Pooja Malik, et al. “Stereolithography: Potential Applications in Forensic Science.” Research Journal of Engineering Sciences, vol. 1, no. 5, 2012, pp. 47–50, www.isca.in.
Schuh, P., et al. “Can Clinical CT Data Improve Forensic Reconstruction?” International Journal of Legal Medicine, vol. 127, no. 3, 2013, pp. 631–38. Crossref, doi:10.1007/s00414-013-0830-y.
Scott, Clare. “Could 3D Printed Fingerprints Help Criminals Break through Security? MSU Researchers Demonstrate It’s Possible.” 3D Print, 21 Oct. 2016, 3dprint.com/153234/3d-printed-fingerprints-security.
Sharma, Shalza, et al. “A Review of Recent Developments on Stereolithography.” International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, vol. 8, no. 8, 16 Aug. 2019, pp. 180–185.
Tumbleston, J. R., et al. “Continuous Liquid Interface Production of 3D Objects.” Science, vol. 347, no. 6228, 2015, pp. 1349–52. Crossref, doi:10.1126/science.aaa2397.
Wallin, T. J., et al. “3D Printing of Soft Robotic Systems.” Nature Reviews Materials, vol. 3, no. 6, 2018, pp. 84–100. Crossref, doi:10.1038/s41578-018-0002-2.
How to cite this article?
| APA Style | Madhavan, P., Prabhu, S., Radje, V., & Miqdad, S. M. (2022). Stereolithographic Printing A Novelty In Forensic Odontology: A Review. Academic Journal of Anthropological Studies, 5(1), 23–28. |
| Chicago Style | |
| MLA Style | |
| DOI | |
| URL |