This is interesting, too.
http://www.sfu.museum/forensics/eng/pg_media-media_pg/anthropologie-anthropology/
"Confirming an identification
Once a biological profile has been created and a potential missing person singled out, investigators must try to ensure the unknown remains actually belong to the missing person in question. One of the best ways to do this is to compare antemortem medical records with the evidence presented by the remains. For example, radiographs ("x-rays") taken during life can be compared to radiographs of the skeletonised remains. Examiners look for
http://www.googleartproject.com/ in size, shape, and features to determine if the antemortem and post-mortem radiographs could represent the same individual. Medical records of individuals with surgical implants such as pace-makers, breast augmentations, surgical steel orthopaedic pins, etc. can be correlated with the presence of similar objects recovered with remains. Even though the information they provide may be instrumental to the case, anthropologists cannot legally identify an individual. In most of North America, the coroner or medical examiner is the only person legally able to make an identification. If all of the antemortem records, material evidence, and skeletal evidence agree, the identification is considered "presumptive". This means the investigators presume that the deceased is the missing person. At this point, investigators will seek corroborative evidence, often by requesting DNA samples from family members. If the familial DNA matches the individual's DNA, the identification is considered "positive". The remains are then returned to the family. In some cases however, DNA may not return sufficient results to confirm the identity of the individual, and the coroner or medical examiner must decide if all the evidence, taken as a whole is strong enough to support the identification."
I didn't know that.
