Facial Reconstruction Anatomical Method vs. Tissue Depth Method

1. Facial ReconstructionAnatomical Method vs. Tissue Depth Method Rebecca Tokodi

2. Introduction and Background • Research Focus • Materials and Methods • Results • Discussion • Conclusion

3. Introduction and Background Anatomical Method • Uses origins and insertions to rebuild each muscle • Glands and fatty tissue rebuilt • Expertise in biomechanics and anatomy needed • Longer process than tissue depth method • Same for all ethnic groups

4. Introduction and Background Anatomical Method • Temporalis Muscle • Zygomaticus Muscle • Masseter Muscle • Orbicularis Oris • Parotid Gland • Buccal Fatty Pad • Fat Pad of the Chin http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/research/anthropology/crsp/arccrsppearlstmethods2.html

5. Introduction and Background Tissue Depth Method • Uses 21 osteological landmarks -11 bilateral points -10 midline points • Soft tissue built up to depth markers - soft tissue includes muscles, skin, fat, and glands • Depths given by previous studies -collected by needle probe method or ultrasound

6. Introduction and Background Tissue Depth Method • Depths given for different categories -ethnic background -age -weight • Faster than anatomical method • Less anatomical training needed

7. Introduction and Background • Research Focus • Materials and Methods • Results • Discussion • Conclusion

8. Introduction and BackgroundAnatomical Method • Introduced in 1927 by Mikhail Gerasimov • 140 of Gerasimov’s reconstructions were identified and verified • Also known as the Russian Method • Used in an archeological context -tissue depth of ancient population unknown -museum exhibits

9. Introduction and BackgroundTissue Depth Method • Introduced in 1895 by W.His • Made famous by reconstruction of Johann Sebastian Bach • Depths recorded by needle puncture method -24 male cadavers -4 female cadavers • Used widely today by law enforcement agencies for identifying the dead

10. Introduction and Background • Research Focus • Materials and Methods • Results • Discussion • Conclusion

11. Research Focus • A comparison of facial reconstruction methods, anatomical and tissue depth. • Factors that influence tissue depth • Frequency of use • Validity of results

12. Introduction and Background • Question • Materials and Methods • Results • Discussion • Conclusion

13. Materials • Sculpting tools • Gauge (in millimeters) • Metal scale (in millimeters) • Sculpey III modeling clay • Acetone soluble adhesive • Vinyl machine eraser strips • Ping pong ball • High gloss paint • Plastic skull replica

14. Methods • Determination of sex, race, and age • Creating prosthetic eye • Cutting depth markers • Placement of depth markers • Setting of prosthetic eye • Connecting tissue depth markers • Developing facial features • Photography

15. Methods Determination of sex

16. MethodsDetermination of race

17. Methods Creating prosthetic eye

18. Methods Depth markers

19. Methods Depth markers

20. Methods Setting prosthetic eye • Center eye frontally • Projecting even with top and bottom of orbit • Secured by clay • Fatty pad behind eye deteriorates with age

21. Methods Connecting tissue depth markers • Fill in by strips to almost cover depth markers • No clay is placed on midline points 3,4,5,6,7, and 8 • No clay is placed on bilateral points 13 and 15

22. Methods Developing the mouth • Closed mouth easiest • Vertical thickness of mouth is upper CEJ to lower CEJ (cement enamel junction) • Width is pre-molar to pre-molar • Artistic development of parting line and philtrum

23. Methods Developing the nose • Nasal aperture measured at widest width

24. Methods Developing the nose • Projection given by: Length of bony spine x’s 3 added to depth of marker 5 • Shape of nose determined by shape of nasal aperture

25. Introduction and Background • Research Focus • Materials and Methods • Results • Discussion • Conclusion

26. Results • Caucasian • Adult male • Age- undetermined

27. Results • 4.1% of children are biracial (U.S. Census 1990) • -number expected to increase • 2,000,000 multiracial children in married-couple households

28. ResultsNegroid and mixed population study • Facial tissue for negroids is thicker in the upper and lower parts of the face- Lower lip, frontal eminence, and cheek area • Negroid female tissue depths were thicker in the lower lip, mental eminence, frontal eminence, lateral orbital margin, supra glenoid, and cheek area

29. ResultsCaucasoid and mixed population study • Tissues thickness of the males of the mixed group was greater in the mid philtrum, upper lip, and gonial areas, • Tissue thickness of caucasoid males was thicker in the nasion, mental eminence, supra orbital, lateral orbital, and cheek regions

30. Introduction and Background • Research Focus • Materials and Methods • Results • Discussion • Conclusion

31. Discussion • Negroid males and females have thicker soft tissue compared to the mixed race population • The mixed race population had considerable differences compared to the caucasoid populations • The mixed race group is unique and measurements should not be considered an average between caucasoid and negroid populations

32. Discussion • Argued that reconstruction is not meant to make exact portrait • Many variables that can influence the rate of identification • Too much of an artistic influence can change results

33. Discussion • Increase in biracial individuals means an inability to apply tissue depths to reconstructions • Not ethical to use insufficient information • Caucasian becoming less defined • Easier when clues are left at the scene • Facial reproduction still widely used by law enforcement agencies- including FBI

34. Discussion http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/oct2000/ubelaker.htm

35. Introduction and Background • Research Focus • Materials and Methods • Results • Discussion • Conclusion

36. Conclusion • More studies need to be conducted on biracial populations • Anatomical method new method of choice? • Other options of facial reproduction -computerized methods