Forensic genetics: Scope and application from forensic odontology perspective.

Forensic science corresponds to the employment of science to the law or legal matters. One of the major concerns of legal system is to deduce the recognition of an item or individual, involved in crime for which forensic expert plays a pivotal role. Forensic odontology, a budding branch in dentistry, involves the application of dentistry to the legal system. The dental characteristics are considered as one of the primary characteristics of identification as per Interpol DVI guidelines. Thus, establishing the identity of unknown human remains through dental features is considered as one of the core domains of forensic odontology. However, its reliability and its acceptability in the court of law are only secondary to the application of DNA technologies. Also, the acceptability of bite-mark analysis and its evidentiary role is debatable. However, the bite marks may also be a source of salivary DNA, to establish the linking of the perpetrator to the victim. The recent advancements in the DNA technologies and the use of teeth and saliva as sources of DNA are the added advantages in the application of DNA as person identifiers especially in badly mutilated, decomposed and charred bodies and in linking the perpetrator to the crime. With this background, we present here a review on the application of forensic genetics from a forensic odontology point of view.

Treatment of symptomatic oral lichen planus (OLP) with 0.1% tacrolimus powder in Oraguard-B - A pilot prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of 0.1% tacrolimus powder in Oraguard-B for the treatment of patients with symptomatic oral lichen planus (OLP). METHODS: This was a nonrandomized, nonblinded study conducted in the outpatient department. The 20 patients with symptomatic OLP oral lichen planus who were asked to participate in the study were provided with 20-g containers of the study medication. Patients were asked to use the medication over the symptomatic areas three times a day until resolution of the lesion. Patients were recalled to assess the drug response every 15 days. RESULTS: The duration of treatment ranged from 30 to 183 days, with a mean of 81.8 ± 44.4 days; all 20 patients reported a favourable response to the topical tacrolimus therapy. Eleven patients had complete resolution of their lesions. In 16 of 20 patients, there was marked resolution in symptoms as recorded by visual analogue scale. Out of 10 patients followed up for a period of 3 months, 5 had recurrence of their lesions but with less intensity, and the patients were symptomless. No serious side effects were associated with the study medication. CONCLUSION: Topical tacrolimus 0.1% in Oraguard-B was effective and safe in treating patients with OLP. However, there is still a need to undertake more detailed and objective clinical studies to determine the exact benefit of tacrolimus compared with conventional therapies and examine the influence of different dose regimes and formulations and assess the incidence of recurrence.