1. REDEFINING CONFINES OF PHOTO-EDITING OF DENTAL RECORDS
Kapoor P1, Ragini2
1Associate professor, Dept of orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Jamia Millia Islamia
2Professor and Head, Dept of orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Jamia Millia Islamia
INTRODUCTION:
MANIPULATIONS DONE:
Digital forensics comprising of digital photographs of teeth, casts , bite marks, radiographs are an integral part of evidence in forensic odontology.
Freely available image editing softwares has increased probability of digital forgery, thus leading to scientific delinquency
Acceptability of image manipulation should be in accordance with guidelines for ethical digital image use and manipulation by DW Cromey1
FIG NO.
DESCRIPTION
SOFTWARES
TOOLS FOR MANIPULATION
MANIPULATIONS
ACCEPTABLE/ UNACCEPTABLE 1
Study casts of
eruption
abnormalities
Adobe Photoshop
3.6
Clone stamp, magic wand
Duplicate images of casts, Select pixels with similar
color
Unacceptable 2
Bond failure of bracket on 31displacing it distally
Picasa (Google) 3.1, Adobe Photoshop 3.
Patch, Lasso, Magic wand, Blur, Smudge
Select & copy metal, with similar color, diminish distinction
between pixels, homogenize tooth surface 3
Original Intraoral patient photo
Crop
Crop unwanted area to highlight the right lateral view
Acceptable
AIM:
To ascertain acceptable limits of digital images manipulation of dental records by application of ethical guidelines
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
Three digital image records (fig1-3) with Digital SLR camera-Nikon DSC D3100. obtained from OPD of Dept of Orthodontics
Tampering of images (Fig 1a-3a) done with image editing softwares (Adobe® Photoshop®
(Adobe Systems Inc, San Jose, CA, USA), Microsoft paint 6.1 and Picasa 3.6 version)
Permissibility of these manipulations assessed on the baisis of ethical guidelines1
RESULTS:
DISCUSSION
Fig 1: Guidelines 1,2 &8 conferred unacceptability of image manipulation due to cloning or copying objects into a digital image, from other parts of the same or different images.
Fig 2: Guidelines 1,2 &8 conferred unacceptability due to duplication on selection of pixels with colour similar to blue background .
Fig 3: Guidelines 4 &11 conferred acceptability due to cropping of image retaining adequate
amount of pixels for magnification .
Fig 1
MEASURES TO CHECK INTENTIONAL FORGERY:2,3
Fig 2
Fig 3
Storing data in read only file in DVD-R or CD-R
Attaching meta data
Adding water mark
Specialized softwares for detection
CONCLUSIONS:
Cloning of specific areas in image, blending to form a composite image, additions or
Cropping or intensity adjustments in moderation to entire image are permissible
deletions, adjustments in colour, homogenization and retouching parts of image is unethical
Fig 2a
Fig 1a
Fig 3a
[Guidelines given] 1: Cromey DW. Avoiding Twisted Pixels: Ethical Guidelines for the Appropriate Use and Manipulation of Scientific Digital Images. Sci Eng Ethics 2010; 16:639–667..
2. Madhan B, Gayathri H. Identification and prevention of digital forgery in orthodontic records. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 138:
3. Chowdhry A, Sircar K, Popli DB, Tandon A. Image manipulation: Fraudulence in digital dental records: Study and review. Journal of Forensic Dental Sciences 2014; 6(1):