These guidelines are dedicated to the waiting family members and friends of the thousands of missing persons in this country. Their grief for the loss of loved ones has been compounded by the anguish of not knowing what has happened to them. Unlike the much publicized American soldiers, "Missing In Action", the American civilians, "Missing In America", have received little notice or attention in the media. But like their military counterparts, these individuals have families that need to know what has happened to their loved ones. If that information is available, they have a right to know. It is the hope of the American Board of Forensic Odontology that the guidelines offered here will heighten law enforcement’s understanding of this problem and improve their ability to deal with missing and unidentified person cases in a more effective and sensitive manner.

These guidelines were designed as a resource for those agencies, jurisdictions, and individuals who have an interest or a responsibility in missing person and/or unidentified body cases. Dental verification has long been accepted as a reliable means of human identification, but many times the responsible officials do not completely understand the technical requirements of forensic odontology (dentistry). It is hoped that the information provided here will assist the forensic odontologist and law enforcement personnel in those cases that require or involve this type of evidence.

Based on the importance of dental identifications and the new technologies available, the American Board of Forensic Odontology (ABFO) formed a special committee at its annual meeting in Boston in 1993. One of the initial tasks of this Missing/Unidentified Person Committee was to develop meaningful guidelines for forensic odontologists and law enforcement personnel to refer to in the gathering and use of dental information. This committee is now a standing committee of the ABFO and will continue to evaluate and determine valid techniques and protocols to assist in the missing and unidentified persons issue.

How important is the timely identification of unknown human remains? In cases involving a death, little progress will be made without first establishing the true identity of the deceased. It is a well understood axiom in law enforcement that "if you can’t identify the body, you can’t solve the case." But there is an even more compelling, humanitarian reason for accurate and quick identifications. The surviving family and loved ones need to know for their own well being.

Everyone who loses a loved one, goes through a grieving process. When that process is interrupted or otherwise not allowed to proceed naturally, that individual is at risk for his/her own physical and emotional health. Massachusetts State Senator Louis P. Bertonazzi referred to this problem during his keynote address to the "First National Symposium on Dentistry’s Role and Responsibility in Mass Disaster Identification" in Chicago, June 1986, when he said:

It is for this reason that family and friends of missing persons need, in fact often desire, to be informed as soon as possible if their loved one is in fact dead. The old adage "no news is good news" does not apply in these cases. Families need to know as soon as possible; and they also need to know that all is being done to find out what has happened, one way or the other.

Scientific Identification

There currently exist four general methods to identify deceased human remains. They are visual recognition, fingerprint comparison, DNA analysis, and medical/dental comparison. Clearly, visual recognition is not a scientific method. But what do the others have in common that make them scientific?

They all involve the direct comparison of substantive material evidence. Fingerprint records made or latent prints left before death can be compared to those taken from a body; DNA evidence, available before death, can be compared to that recovered from postmortem tissues; and dental and medical characteristics, discovered visually and/or via radiographs (x-rays), can be compared to antemortem records and films. There has to be a comparison of antemortem and postmortem evidence to establish a positive identification.

Each method has its advantages and shortcomings, but without exception, all are dependent on the existence of antemortem material. The conclusions drawn by the forensic experts are only as good as the evidence with which they have to work. More than one case has seen the introduction or the attempt to introduce fraudulent evidence. The prudent investigator will question the authenticity of the antemortem evidence, and do everything possible to insure its validity. In the same vein, it is equally important to document the postmortem evidence and to protect the chain of custody of that material.

Fingerprints, when available, are generally recognized as the best form of identification. If the deceased has useable fingerprints and if they are on record somewhere, that comparison alone can establish positive identification. Unfortunately, it is also a fact that today fewer people have fingerprint records taken and retained than in previous times. And women historically have been less likely to have had fingerprint records taken. In addition, fingerprints, though constant during a person’s life, will start to deteriorate immediately after death as the body decomposes.

DNA analysis has rapidly proven itself to be a valuable tool in the identification process. In addition to its value in criminal cases, it has revolutionized civil proceedings involving paternity and maternity. However, a positive identification using this technique, like the others, requires that some proven antemortem genetic material from that individual be available. Comparisons to relative, parents, siblings, etc, can not be conclusive. These can only prove relationships, not positive identification. One has to only consider the cases of babies unknowingly switched in the hospital and clandestine marital infidelities to recognize some of the obstacles.

The comparison of a missing person’s dental records, models and radiographs (x-rays) with the dental evidence from unknown human remains, has long been recognized as one of the most reliable means of positive scientific identification. Though an individual’s dental characteristics will often change during life (cavities, fillings, extractions, etc.), changes after death are very slow. In fact, the dental condition at death has been shown to last in some cases for centuries.

When there is an alteration in an individual’s dental condition, that change is in one direction. This was described by Lorton and Langley:

Likewise, once a tooth is extracted or otherwise missing, it cannot subsequently be present. This unidirectional change is significant during the verification process and must be considered during any comparison/search process (described below).

The accurate and scientific identification of an unknown human body can only be accomplished when there is a record to compare with the postmortem evidence. To be able to find that antemortem record, there has to be something to suggest that individual’s possible identity. This is usually provided by some personal effect or clue found on or in the general vicinity of the body. However, when there are no such clues, law enforcement must use the actual physical characteristics of the victim and compare to available missing person records. For practical purposes these general physical descriptors (height, weight, eye and hair color, etc.) can be of some assistance in narrowing the field of possible identities; however, they are subject to change and are often subjective assessments. Considering the large number of missing persons in this country, this type of evidence, though important, has a limited value in an actual identification. In addition, with the passage of time many of these characteristics are lost to decomposition, skeletonization and scattering.

Historically however, without some clue to the possible identity, no direct comparison could be accomplished. And those clues were usually non-dental in nature, i.e. personal effects, witnesses’ accounts, circumstances, auto registrations, etc. Additionally, in more than a few instances the dental information from unidentified bodies was not recorded for later comparison because no putative identification was discovered at the time. As a result, that information was frequently lost forever, making future comparisons impossible.

With the development of computer software programs designed to search and compare dental records, in a way somewhat similar to the way that Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) searches fingerprint records, it has become possible to use the dental evidence available in these types of cases as the sole vehicle to actually narrow the field of records to check. This process is called the comparison/search process.

Unfortunately, too few agencies are taking advantage of the new technologies available. They begin by failing to gather the dental data, especially in missing persons cases. Dental information is not being routinely included in missing person reports. This is reflected in the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) system which consistently has less than 2% of its missing entries with dental information included. In addition, they also too frequently fail to record and preserve the dental evidence from unidentified bodies. The unidentified entries with dental information are at only slightly over 50%. It is clear that law enforcement needs to recognize and embrace this valuable tool in its missing and unidentified person cases.

The missing person report begins with that first contact from a family member or friend. This is the most critical time in the entire process, and the most often neglected by police agencies. Often times the assignment to "missing persons" is either neglected or given to the most junior officer in the department with turnover commonly frequent. This makes it a seemingly unimportant duty, one that no one would want to have. It may not be illegal to be missing, but these cases are important to family members and without this information some cases will go unresolved. It is important and the assignment of personnel to this task should acknowledge that importance within the department.

It is during this initial contact that three things can be accomplished. Complete information regarding the missing needs to be recorded; the family needs to be reassured that their case is important; and favorable public relations for the agency within the community should be realized. This is the time to gather as much information as possible. The reporting individual is already upset; as a result, the recording officer can do little that will cause him/her much additional grief at this time. Ask all of the questions now; returning later will surely only cause additional unnecessary anguish.

Most law enforcement agencies have standard forms for recording missing person reports. It is important that these forms include adequate space for medical and dental information. Ask the reporting person about the missing person’s medical and dental history:

1. Name and address of dentist(s)

2. Did he/she go to the dentist regularly?

3. Did he/she have a regular dentist? Here? Previous home locations? Previous military service? Which branch?

4. Other dental sources (specialists): orthodontists (straightening), oral surgeons, periodontists (gum disease), endodontists (root canals), prosthodontists (dentures, partials, crown and bridge and im- plants).

5. Medical history, including physician names, hospitalizations, accidents, illnesses, etc. Be specific about head and chest injuries, these often result in medical x-rays that show some dental features.

Ask for this information now. As mentioned before, the family is already upset or they would not be reporting the disappearance. As a result, there is little that the recording officer can do to further this grief, unless he/she is completely insensitive. To return later for dental information can upset the family needlessly. What can be worse than to have an officer call thirty, sixty, ninety days later and state:

"We found a body we think may be your missing loved one. A visual identification is impossible. Can you give us the name of his/her dentist?"

Does that sound cruel and insensitive? What if the body turns out not to be the suspected missing person? It happens all too often! There will be officers who read this, who will say: "Wait a minute. I’m not going to gather all of that information on every runaway kid and hooker that gets reported missing. They usually turn up in a few days anyway." He/she would be right. But taking the information at the initial report does not mean that those actual records have to be gathered immediately from those sources. When a reasonable time has passed (varies with the case) the data can then be located and collected.

Some agencies actually use a return call on missing person cases. This lets them confirm that the person is still missing and it can have a positive public relations effect by letting the family know that they are still working the case. The time lag between report and follow up will vary with the particular case, but one to two weeks for most cases is probably appropriate. If there has been no contact during that period, then it is time to research and gather the dental data and share it with other agencies.

There is no real need to delay collecting the dental information beyond thirty days. This should be viewed as a maximum time for gathering and reporting. In most cases, two to three weeks are more appropriate.

When contacting a dental or medical office, the officer should appropriately identify himself/herself and explain the nature of the investigation and the information that he/she is requesting. Most offices will voluntarily cooperate fully; some states have laws that permit police access; and if not, a subpoena or threat of a subpoena, will usually facilitate access. Remember, this office may have information that could lead to other sources, i.e. previous dentists, specialist referrals, medical history, etc.

All available information should be retrieved. This will include:

1. Complete written records or good quality, readable photocopies. The originals are preferred.

2. Original radiographs or good quality duplicates. Again the originals are preferred. If duplicates are provided they need to be accurately labeled as to left-right orientation, and include all dates, etc.

3. Plaster or stone models (study models), if available.

4. Photographs if available. Some offices have prints or videos of patients in various stages of treatment.

5. Any other information that is available concerning that patient.

Military records can be researched by contacting the nearest military base with the appropriate branch of service for the missing person. The military intelligence office is the resource for information concerning former members.

Try to obtain records from more than one office if possible, even if one is quite old. This will help to authenticate the antemortem evidence.

If no leads are available from the missing person report, contacting local area dental offices and medical facilities may produce some positive results. Insurance companies and the Department of Health and Welfare may also provide useful information. Be imaginative; there is probably some information out there somewhere. Refer to the ABFO Body Identification Guidelines for further sources.

The first thing to do after gathering this information is to include it in the missing person report. It should not just be filed away and forgotten. It has value to the case and as such it needs to be utilized. Whether a possible identity has been determined or not, the services of a forensic odontologist should be employed at this time.

The process of deciphering and putting the dental information into a useable missing person dental form is rarely an easy task. Quite often the written dental record is incomplete or illegible. For this reason, a trained forensic dentist should be consulted for this task and the task of filling out forms from any local, state, or national dental data base programs. Again, often these forms require some familiarity and experience to properly complete; and accuracy at this point is more important than speed.

The logical first step is to have the consulting forensic expert compare this newly acquired dental data with any available postmortem evidence. If no local match is found, the information should be shared with other local, regional and national agencies that are equipped to handle this type of data. A more detailed explanation of these programs is described below, under the heading "Search/Comparison Programs."

In those cases that involve severely fragmented victims, the area should be carefully checked for any remaining and not readily apparent hard and soft tissue fragments. This may require the assistance of experts trained in fragment search and recover. Certainly, a grid search is recommended in most of these cases. Any recovered body parts or evidence should be placed in a body bag or other appropriate evidence container for transportation. It is important to note that this should be accomplished only after proper notation of the location of the fragment(s) has been made.

The decomposed body generally has the oral structures intact, but the decomposition process in many cases will cause the fibers which hold the teeth to the bone in the dental arches to break down. With this breakdown of the periodontal fibers, the teeth, especially those with straight roots (like the front teeth), can be easily dislodged and potentially lost prior to examination. Before moving the body, note the absence of any front teeth by separating the lips gently. If some are missing from open sockets, look to see if there are any teeth near the body. If not, those teeth may be found later during the examination. They are often located at the back of the mouth. If not found, the sight of the body should be revisited and searched for the missing evidence as described above. Caution must be taken when moving the body so that any loose teeth are not inadvertently bumped and dislodged.

In all severely burned cases, extreme caution must be taken in transporting the body, not because whole teeth will dislodge but because the heat may have so desiccated and charred the crowns of the teeth that merely touching them may cause them to shatter. If the teeth appear likely to be fragile, closeup photographs of the dentition prior to careful transport may be helpful in reconstruction, if there is damage during the movement of the body.

Above all, great care should be taken not to jar the body during transport. All surrounding debris which might contain dental evidence should be recovered as well, so that it can be inspected for dental fragments. Once in the examination facility, it is sometimes possible to reinforce the dental structures so that they are not as likely to fracture by spraying an adhesive over the teeth. Attempts to maintain as much intact tooth structure and its supporting bone may be critical in verifying the identity of the victim.

In skeletonized cases, the teeth are readily visible but as in the decomposed cases, the soft tissue attachment between the teeth and the bone is no longer holding the teeth in the skeleton. Therefore, straight rooted teeth are easily and often lost. If the body has been buried or animal activity has caused the skeleton to be moved, it may be advisable to sift the surrounding ground for small bones, teeth or other evidence. These fragments can be tagged and brought to the facility for examination.

This procedure is fairly straight forward. A complete visual inventory and written record of the remaining dental evidence is basic to any forensic dental examination. The investigating dentist should note and record any and all oral and dental features on a form designed for that purpose. This will form the basis for later comparisons in both verification and search activities.

The visual examination and subsequent dental charting can be a relatively easy procedure or a very tedious, difficult task, depending on the accessibility of the teeth and the condition of the remains. Where all of the teeth remain in the bony arches, forcing the jaws open, in some cases breaking the rigor mortis, and cleaning the teeth is all that is necessary. In cases of severe burning, it is sometimes necessary to carefully remove the upper and lower jaws so that cleaning and complete examination may be performed.

Every postmortem dental examination should include the taking of dental radiographs (x-ray films). The reasons for this are two fold. First, a completely accurate dental charting without radiographs is not possible, since there are many conditions that are only detectable by this method, i.e root canals, retained roots, impacted teeth, etc. And secondly, dental films are the hard evidence that will be needed to substantiate any conclusions in the case. Anyone can make recording errors on a chart. The radiographs are solid objective recordings of the actual dental characteristics.

A thorough postmortem dental radiographic examination should include a complete series of periapical films of the available dental structures. Bitewing type films should also be included since they are the most common type found in dental records. No matter what types are taken, it is important that any films be properly angulated, well exposed, and well processed (developed and fixed).

Besides periapicals and bitewings, there are several other different types of films available. These include panoramics, occlusals, and medical type films, such as lateral head and anterior/posterior skull views.

These are the most common type of radiograph found in dentistry and therefore, likely to turn up as part of the antemortem dental record. In fact, quite often it is the only type of dental film available. Because they are taken of both jaws at the same time (in occlusion), these films generally show the upper and lower teeth in close approximation, therefore depicting the full crowns of all of the teeth visible in the exposure. These films do not show the areas around the ends of the roots and therefore may not disclose some very useful information. If the jaws and teeth are severely fragmented or the teeth are very fragile, it may be difficult to secure radiographs of this type for the postmortem dental record. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to include bitewings in this examination.

The periapical dental film is taken of one jaw at a time, and it shows the bony structure at and around the end of the root as well as the entire tooth itself. Depending on the location and condition of the individual, usually two to four teeth will show fairly completely on one of these films. These should be taken in all areas of the dental arches, even those not containing visible teeth, since teeth or other characteristics can be impacted or hidden within the bony structures. A full set of these films should be taken along with any bitewing films. A full set of periapical films will usually include about fourteen films of the standard dental size.

This type of film provides a large single radiograph that shows most of the lower face including both jaws, the sinus cavities, nasal passages, lower portions of the eye sockets, and the angles of the mandible. The film is taken with the head stabilized in a cradle while the x-ray source and the film cassette both travel around the head. These films are not routinely taken in most dental offices. However, they are common enough that their use in forensics has to be considered. They should be used for comparison to antemortem dental films cautiously if the antemortem films are of a different type. This is because: (1) The film is so large that individual teeth and supporting structures are often overlapped and/or distorted, making comparison to other film types difficult; and (2) the sheer logistics of positioning a decedent’s head, jaw or jaw fragments, onto the machine may prevent the production of a quality image.

These films are those radiographs commonly taken for orthodontic purposes or for diagnosis of head injuries, sinus problems and the like. These films usually show the entire skull from a particular view or exposure. While anatomical features such as the sinuses, especially the frontal sinus in an Anterior/posterior view or a Waters view, can be beautifully depicted, the visualization of the teeth is difficult due to overlapping of teeth, superimposition of the right and left sides of the arches and other types of distortion. All of these factors can make comparison of specific dental features very difficult.

Photographs

Although generally not as critical as the dental radiographs, dental photographs are very helpful in preserving the evidence, especially when there is some unique dental feature which would be difficult to describe otherwise. Photography can also provide a double check for possible recording errors. In addition, photographs, particularly those of the front teeth, may be useful for comparisons to antemortem photographs which show unusual features of these teeth. These photographs should include all those views that the investigating forensic dentist feels are important.

Study Models

Study models are seldom used to preserve evidence in identification cases. Due to fragility of the teeth in some situations and the breakdown of the soft tissue in others, taking impressions can, under certain circumstances, alter the existing evidence. However, for any given particular case, it may be a procedure that the examining forensic dentist would feel is necessary.

Preservation of Jaw and Tooth Fragments

In those cases where the dental evidence is minimal or questionable in some way, and/or if the body is to be disposed of by cremation, the dental evidence should be removed from the remainder of the body, marked and properly stored for future examination and study. Refer to the ABFO Body Identification Guidelines for information concerning removal and storage.

These specimens should be thoroughly cleaned and stored in such a way as to insure retention of all dental evidence, keeping in mind that teeth are easily lost from their sockets.

If necessary resect or remove the jaws from the supporting bone and muscle attachments. The specimen must be cleaned and then stored in a standard morgue formalin solution.

Authorization For Removal of Dental Structures

Resection of the deceased remains will require legal authorization before proceeding. The form of that authority will vary depending on the jurisdiction in which the examination occurs. At the very least it is necessary to obtain permission for the resection from the coroner/medical examiner under whose authority the case falls. The methods of resection will vary with the situation and will include use of an autopsy saw, mallet and chisel, or pruning shears. A forensic dentist will be familiar with the technique most applicable to each particular case.

Whenever a deceased body is discovered and especially when a timely identification is not anticipated, all available identifying physical evidence needs to be gathered and preserved. This should be accomplished before the body leaves the custody of the responsible investigative authorities. Besides fingerprints, photographs and DNA samples, dental information should be recorded in all cases involving a death, whenever there may be some present or future need to verify the identity of the individual with a degree of scientific certainty. Please refer again to the ABFO Body Identification Guidelines.

Though it is usually the burned, decomposed, or severely traumatized case that ultimately requires dental identification, there is always the possibility that dental verification may be the only scientific method available in other less obvious cases. The conscientious investigator should never allow an unidentified body to be disposed of without taking fingerprints, if available. So it should be with any available dental evidence.

In addition, with the increasing use of computer based dental comparison programs, it may be that the ultimate clue to the true identity may come from the dental evidence. Rapid identification can be critical in case resolution.

A trained forensic odontologist should be retained to perform the examination and necessary record-taking, so that all recorded information is accurate, complete and preserved properly. It is always best to do this immediately, and to do it right. This will greatly reduce the necessity of having to exhume the body at a later date and thereby incurring additional expenses, and embarrassment. Be complete and be accurate. And most importantly: Do it right the first time!

It should be noted here that law enforcement should expect the following from any dental consultant that they employ:

1. A written forensic dental report of findings, recommendations and conclusions.

2. Copies of all documentation, including charting, photographs, models and radiographs.

3. Prompt completion of all examinations and reports, or an explanation of why more time is needed.

4. Completed submission forms for NCIC or other search/comparison programs.

Using The Dental Information

Once all of the postmortem records are complete, these should become part of the unidentified persons file in the coroner/medical examiner’s office. The logical next step after the report is completed is to have the consulting forensic dentist compare this newly acquired dental data with any available antemortem information. If no local match is found immediately, the information should be shared with other local, regional, and national agencies which are equipped to handle this type of data. A more detailed explanation of these programs is described below, under the heading "Search/Comparison Programs."

In most cases the dental identification of unknown human remains is simply a matter of directly comparing the postmortem dental records with the antemortem dental records of a suspected individual. Another more difficult case scenario might involve the discovery of a body when a possible identity is not apparent. In these instances some type of evidence found at the scene or on the body is used.

One of the most difficult, but more important tasks, that a forensic dentist can be asked to accomplish is the identification of unidentified remains when the investigators have no idea of the possible identity. There are no leads to follow or possible acquaintances to interview. Until the development of computer technologies, this task was all but impossible.

With the use of computer comparison programs the antemortem and postmortem information can be entered into a data base and thousands of comparisons can be made in seconds generating a list of possible candidates, which can then be confirmed or rejected by visual comparison of the appropriate dental radiographs and/or other dental evidence. For this to be a truly effective tool for law enforcement, appropriate dental search/comparison facilities must exist. Without a useable, up to date data base, the various search procedures can not be accomplished.

Minimum Requirements

The concept of a computer data base of dental information is not new; the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) at the FBI, has the capability to receive dental information. However, there are several issues that need to be considered when evaluating or establishing a "Search/Comparison" program.

1. The computer software program must be easy to use and have the capability to perform general and specific searches and dental characteristic comparisons.

2. The entry codes, forms, and procedures must be clear and uncomplicated, to reduce data errors.

3. Law enforcement offices with authority to submit data must be educated concerning the use and value of the program.

4. Mandatory reporting should be required of all law enforcement offices.

The best location for "Search/Comparison" programs is at the state or regional level. This could more easily address the areas of concern outlined above and still keep the size of the data base manageable.

The "ideal" program would have the following characteristics:

1. Established under the State Department of Law Enforcement or State Police/Patrol.

2. Run by a trained forensic dentist.

3. Utilizing the CAPMI computer program (discussed below).

4. Mandatory reporting requirements for (1) missing persons, (2) unidentified bodies, (3) released felons, and (4) parole/probation violators.

5. Education program for local and state law enforcement, and coroners/medical examiners.

6. Cooperation and sharing of data with neighboring programs.

One partial solution to the comparison problem of NCIC has been implemented by the Washington State Patrol’s Missing/Unidentified Persons Unit (M/UPU). Several years ago they began using CAPMI4 (Computer Aided Postmortem Identification) as a parallel system for entry and search of missing and unidentified persons information. This software program was originally developed by the US Army under the direction of Dr. Lewis Lorton and programmed by Mr. Robert Weed. It was originally developed to assist in mass casualty events and has been used at CILHI, (the Army’s Central Identification Laboratory, Hawaii), to aid in the identification of remains from the Vietnam and Korean Wars. Beginning in 1985, it was also used by M/UPU to aid in the identification of unknown remains in Washington State. After ten years of experience using this program, M/UPU has found it to be a very valuable and effective tool in the task of identifying the more difficult cases, where other leads have not been available to investigators.

The choice of CAPMI4 as the tool over other currently available programs is mainly based on its ability to perform accurate search and comparison routines. Supporting this is a long history of development and successful use by CILHI. It has also been used successfully in the identification of missing and unidentified persons in Washington State. The use of a DOS based computer is also important in that this type of machine is more compatible with machines already in use by investigating agencies in the United States and around the world. The program also has design features that allow searches not only for dental characteristics, but also for physical attributes of the individuals, which other programs for dental comparisons may not be capable of accomplishing.

It should be understood that while the American Board of Forensic Odontology presently encourages the use of CAPMI4, other programs will be considered for future use as well. (Editors' Note: Chapter 7 of this book contains the detailed use of CAPMI4 which is, in part, a portion of these ABFO Guidelines.)

Inter-Program Protocol

An issue that has received little attention in the past is the manner in which dental information should be shared between similar search/comparison programs. This has not been addressed because there have been few established programs anywhere. As this changes and as additional facilities come "on line", it will be important to have consistent and practical protocols for sharing of missing and unidentified person information.

When developing and implementing interagency protocols a few important factors need to be considered.

1. There will always be considerably more missing person cases than unidentified body cases.

2. The final verification should only be made and announced by the local jurisdiction and its forensic experts.

3. Most, if not all, search/comparison programs will be publicly funded, so successes need to be properly publicized to insure continuance of the programs.

Based on these considerations the following are suggested protocols:

It is important that agencies share the available information with other like programs. Without this type of unselfish exchange of data, no interstate identifications can be accomplished. It is also important to remember that an office that is reluctant to cooperate will soon find little cooperation as well. Success is dependent on working together for the good of the public that is being served.

The questions of which information should be shared with other agencies, and when, is at the heart of the protocol issue. The answers have to be practical.

As outlined above, it is important that the local agency and its forensic expert actually make the final verification of identity. If this is not allowed to occur, it will be a certainty that local office will no longer participate in the program. It is also important that all parties be properly recognized for their participation.

Suggested protocol when a match is found by a search/comparison program:

1. Notify local agencies.

2. Provide necessary information for verification.

3. Local agency should make final verification and publicize findings, if appropriate.

4. All agencies involved should receive public recognition.

[1] "Proceedings: First National Symposium on Dentistry’s Role and Responsibility in Mass Disaster Identifications", American Dental Association, Chicago, Illinois, 1986.

[2] Lorton, L. and Langley, W.H., "Decision-Making concepts in Postmortem Identification," Journal of Forensic Sciences, JFSCA, Vol. 31, No. 1, Jan. 1986, pp.190-196.

[3] American Board of Forensic Odontology, "Body Identification Guidelines", Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 125, No. 9, Sept. 1994, pp. 1244-1254.

[4] Jones, G.F., "A Simple Overlay System for Data Comparison in Dental Identifications, "Journal of Forensic Sciences, JFSCA, Vol. 33, Jan. 1988, pp 254-259.

[5] Haglund, W.D., "The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) Missing and Unidentified Persons System Revisited," Journal of Forensic Sciences, JFSCA, Vol. 38, No. 2, March 1993, pp. 365-378.

[6] Bell, G.L., "Testing of the National Crime Information Center Missing/Unidentified Persons Computer Comparison Routine," Journal of Forensic Sciences, JFSCA, Vol. 38, No. 1, Jan. 1993, pp. 13-22.