North American journal of medical sciences · 2014
Awareness of Forensic Odontology among Legal Professionals, Chennai, India.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Selvajothi Packiaraj, Lavanya Chandra, Joshua Elizabeth, Rao Umadevi K, Ranganathan Kannan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The forensic discipline of law is a multidisciplinary team comprising of specialists in forensic medicine, forensic odontology, security and law.
AIM: The study was to find the awareness level of scope and utility of forensic odontology among lawyers in Chennai, South India.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study using a self administered structured questionnaire was conducted in 200 lawyers between August and September of 2013. The data was analyzed depending on age, gender, type and years of practice.
RESULTS: Lawyers above 40 years of experience were more aware of palatal rugae analysis (P = 0.02), and those with more than 20 years were aware of lip print (P = 0.001) and bite mark analysis (P = 0.001). Males were more aware of forensic odontology with respect to criminal identification (P = 0.001). The knowledge of bite mark analysis was higher among male lawyers (P = 0.001), civil and criminal practicing lawyers (P = 0.004). All participants were aware that loss or fracture of tooth constitutes a grievous injury under Indian Penal Code (IPC) 320 clause 7(5).
CONCLUSION: This study highlighted the knowledge of forensic odontology among legal professionals and also identified the areas in which they need further appraisal.
AIM: The study was to find the awareness level of scope and utility of forensic odontology among lawyers in Chennai, South India.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study using a self administered structured questionnaire was conducted in 200 lawyers between August and September of 2013. The data was analyzed depending on age, gender, type and years of practice.
RESULTS: Lawyers above 40 years of experience were more aware of palatal rugae analysis (P = 0.02), and those with more than 20 years were aware of lip print (P = 0.001) and bite mark analysis (P = 0.001). Males were more aware of forensic odontology with respect to criminal identification (P = 0.001). The knowledge of bite mark analysis was higher among male lawyers (P = 0.001), civil and criminal practicing lawyers (P = 0.004). All participants were aware that loss or fracture of tooth constitutes a grievous injury under Indian Penal Code (IPC) 320 clause 7(5).
CONCLUSION: This study highlighted the knowledge of forensic odontology among legal professionals and also identified the areas in which they need further appraisal.