Identifi cation of unknown suspect through bite marks has always been challenging. Narrowing list of suspects through sex and race markers is always recommend but rarely utilized due to limited publication in this area. Thus, this preliminary research was aimed to study the difference of bite mark made on dental wax between sex and race. A sample size of 40 UKM undergraduates comprising of Malay (male = 10, female = 10) and Chinese (male = 10, female = 10) were used in this study. Bite mark of subject was obtained through dental wax, digitally scanned and analyzed using Image-J software. Parameters measured were anterior teeth size, intercanine width and anterior teeth relative rotation. Result indicated that mandible left canine tooth size had signifi cant sexual dimorphism (p < 0.05) in differentiating sex. The means for male and female measured were 4.63 ± 1.05 mm and 5.35 ± 0.87 mm respectively. In addition to the result, tooth size of maxillary left canine and mandible left lateral incisor were signifi cantly different (p < 0.05) between races. Means for mandible left canine Malay and Chinese were 5.27 ± 1.01 mm and 4.50 ± 1.22 mm respectively. Furthermore, left lateral incisor mandible had means of 5.15 ± 0.87 mm and 4.60 ± 0.74 mm for Malay and Chinese respectively. Unfortunately, there were no signifi cant differences for intercanine width and anterior teeth relative rotation between the two major races in Malaysia. In conclusion, this research has demonstrated the possibility of using tooth size of mandible left canine, maxillary left canine and mandible left lateral discriminate sex and race.
Tooth

The aim of this study was to evaluate the reject rate of periapical and bitewing radiographs among dental undergraduate students of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), identify the type of radiographic errors which are frequently encountered and compare reject rates between Year 3, Year 4 and Year 5 dental undergraduates. 118 rejected periapical radiographs and 27 rejected bitewing radiographs were collected from the UKM dental undergraduates’ polyclinics for a duration of 10 months. These rejected radiographs were further evaluated to determine the type of radiographic error. A spiking increase in periapical radiographs reject rate from Year 3 (4%) to Year 4 (11%) was observed. This finding was consistent with the statistically significant difference in the periapical radiographs reject rates for Year 3 and Year 4 (p = 0.0475). In periapical radiographs, the most frequently committed radiographic error was apical cut, followed by high density film. Vice versa, high density film was accounted as the most common radiographic error in bitewing radiography. Analysis of periapical and bitewing radiographs’ reject rates among UKM dental undergraduate entails the necessity to supervise undergraduate students regardless of the year of their undergraduate training in all aspects of the radiographic procedures which include positioning radiographic armamentarium, the setting of radiographic exposure time and the film processing procedure.