J.

Int Oral Health 2012 Case Report

All right reserved

P- ISSN
Bite-Marks: Understanding 0976 – 7428

the role of general E- ISSN

practitioners in forensic 0976 – 1799

identification Journal of
Mithun Rajshekar* Estie Kruger† Marc Tennant‡ International
BDS, MSc(FS)* BChD MChD† BDSc PhD‡ The Centre for Oral Health
Rural and Remote Oral Health, The University of Western
Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, 6009. Email:
[email protected]
Forensic Dentistry
Abstract:
Bite marks are patterns produced by human or animal dentitions and
Review Article
associated structures in any substance capable of being marked by
those means. A bite mark is a pattern made by teeth in a substrate.
Bite marks can range from a minor superficial abrasion to a sub-
surface haemorrhage or even bruising of the skin. One of the
primary aims of forensic dental identification is to identify people
Received: March, 2012
based on teeth morphology and their subtle variation. Generally,
dental evidence may be used in the identification of individuals Accepted: July, 2012
(both dead and alive), by comparing their dental status with ante and
post-mortem records and also in identifying criminals using bite
marks as an adjuvant to DNA analysis. The American Board of
Forensic Odontology has set standard guidelines for collection and
interpretation of bite marks. These guidelines help in increasing the
scientific validity of evidence in a somewhat controversial field.
The review examines the underpinning approach and scientific Bibliographic listing:
method for bite mark identification. It is targeted towards
increasing the understanding and the ability of local practitioners to EBSCO Publishing
support forensic dental investigators in their work. Courts have
Database, Index
always placed emphasis on a scientific approach when presenting
expert evidence. The scientific approach is a “system” and its Copernicus, Genamics
development must be carefully observed, recorded and analysed
such that predictions may be made systematically based on the Journalseek Database,
observations. Similarly, in forensic dental identification, especially Proquest, Open J Gate.
when analysing bite marks, forensic odontologists must apply
scientific methods to the analysis of a bite mark in a systematic
manner to provide courts with testable evidence.

Keywords: Bite marks, Forensic identification, Odotontology

JIOH Volume 4; Issue 2: May-Aug 2012 1

 2

Introduction: dentures, crowns and bridges and may be used as

One of the most common aims of forensic added information when analysing a bite mark. In
dentistry is the identification of people. Much of few cases, bite marks have been obtained from
this relies on the subtle differences in tooth anatomy chocolates, chewing gum, fruits and vegetables.
and the variation of tooth features, including the The results of a study conducted by Pretty
historical dental care provided (1). In the recent and Sweet in 2000 (13) involving 148 human bite
years, it is far more widely used in forensic marks showed that 33% of the marks were found on
identification. The key lies in the utilization of the breast, 19% on the arm, 8% on the genitalia, 7%
dental radiographs, photographs and a detailed on the back, 6% on both the face and the thigh, 5%
history of previous dental treatment for the purpose on legs and hands, 4% of them on the neck, 3% of
(4). For example a technique developed by Chen and them on the shoulders, and 2% of them on both the
Jain employs image registration methods on abdomen and the buttocks (1). The positioning of the
extracted teeth to register their contours and remaining 13% was not stated.
compare it with the radiograph to ascertain if there is Bite mark evidence is widely accepted in the
a match between the two (5,6). The primary aim of legal system, but the underpinning scientific validity
this review is to briefly examine the basic concepts is at times challenged. The area of bite mark
associated with bite marks and their analysis. It also identification remains one of the most controversial
deals with the American Board of Forensic aspects of forensic identification. Bite marks and
Odontology guidelines and Daubert guidelines both their analysis is founded on two basic presumptions,
of which give a basis of validity in the courts of law. the first being that every individual has a unique
The purpose of this review is to give the general dentition when compared to others, and the second
clinician, awareness of the process of bite mark being the uniqueness is invariably registered on
identification so they can provide support to the either animate surfaces like skin or surfaces (like
forensic dental investigator. fruits or chocolates) (3). These assumptions have
History led to bite marks being accepted in courts of law
Forensic odontology came out the fore in the around the world as expert evidence; however, a
early 1960’s in the United States. It was not until the lack of science behind the assumptions has resulted
1970’s with the establishment of odontology section in the methodology being unyielding (7-10). In
of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences order to overcome this controversy, to increase the
when a more concerted effort to apply rigour was quality of the investigation and also the standards of
founded. The main aim of the society was to unite the conclusion the American Board of Forensic
forensic odontologists as a group and help create an Odontology (ABFO) defined specific guidelines that
avenue for exchange of ideas. However there were are almost universally used in the analysis of bite
(prior to the 1970’s) cases in court where forensic marks. It also developed terminologies that
odontology played a role in judgements expressed different aspects of bite marks and could
Scientific base also be used to express the findings (11). ABFO has
Broadly speaking, bite marks can range been the first to standardise guidelines for those who
from a minor superficial abrasion to a sub-surface collect and interpret bite marks and these guidelines
haemorrhage or even bruising of the skin (1). The help achieve standardised results (12). The
pattern of a bite mark on skin is mainly affected by guidelines break up bite marks analysis into a series
the force applied and the length of time of the bite. of steps; description of bite marks, collection of bite
In addition to these, other factors like mechanical marks both from the victim and also from the
and physiological factors also play a role in how a suspect and the final analysis of the obtained
bite mark appears. Bite marks in humans are most evidence (13). The analysis also relies on
commonly made up of a superficial abrasion with or demographic variation in tooth morphology so
without a haemorrhage and appears like an arch. In recording basic details such as the age, sex, and
vast majority of cases, canines are the key tooth in ethnicity are important baseline information. The
producing bite marks. Incisors contribute to lesser recording of the basic bite mark features such as
extent to bite mark formation and in rare occasions location of the bite mark, size, shape and the colour
premolars may also contribute (13). Any extra marks are vital initial steps in the process. The subtle
may be seen in bite marks caused by people wearing details of the bite mark such as distinguishing

JIOH Volume 4; Issue 2: May-Aug 2012 www.ispcd.org

 3

between a laceration, an abrasion, a contusion, an set of recommendations to follow in providing

incision, an avulsion or an artefact based on the expert evidence (30). Daubert guidelines are a
severity of the injury are important follow-up steps trilogy of Supreme Court cases as well as revisions
(13). During the collection of evidence from a of the Federal Rules of Evidence which represents
victim, ABFO define the responsibility of the efforts of American Law to filter expert evidence
examiner to include if the suspected bite mark has presented in court. Daubert rules clearly stated that
been in any way affected, either due to the admissibility of scientific evidence mainly
contamination, decomposition, or simple things such depends on its evidentiary reliability. Courts must
as change of position or even washing the injury consider whether scientific basis has been tested by
(13). Bite marks must always be documented in trial and error, the methodological firmness of those
such a way that they may be used as reference when tests, and the results of that testing (30).
needed. Photographic methods have superseded Daubert Guidelines
other techniques (eg impressions) as a result of their A technique must be tried and tested before
improved accuracy. Photographic techniques have it is used as evidence in the court of law, the
been outlined by ABFO and these may be used to technique in question has to be peer reviewed, well
record bite marks in detail (13). Saliva must be researched and published. Error rates if any have to
swabbed from the wound and tissue samples (eg be calculated, and finally, the technique must be
DNA) can be obtained. Impressions based on generally accepted as conclusive among experts in a
standards set by ABFO must be made such that any similar field. Daubert reads that if a lawyer
three dimensional characteristics present are understands evidence and can determine a fact in an
recorded accurately. It acts as an adjuvant to issue based on his scientific or technical knowledge,
photographic techniques where details are recorded then they may testify in the form of an opinion. It
only in two dimensions .Materials and methods used may also be based on whether the testimony is based
for this purpose must be recorded accurately by the on facts or data, or if the testimony is a result of
analyst (13). reliable methods and principles and/or whether the
In many cases (after appropriate court witness has applied all the principles and methods
orders) the analyst may collect evidence from the reliably to the case (30). Daubert requires judges to
suspect. Any form of dental history prior to the bite assess research findings, methods, evidence to
mark is an essential recorded detail. Photographs of support the principles used to extrapolate from
the suspect, both the front and the profile should be research. The primary principle of Daubert is that it
obtained (13) along with an intra-oral and an extra- changed the focus from Frye’s deference to the
oral examination. Where possible, two sets of experts, to a more active judicial evaluation of a
impressions for study casts, and a comprehensive particular field’s claims of expertise (30). Judges did
dental chart of the suspect should be made (13). not have to understand the research methodology
The ideal recommended bite mark analysis involved because it was sufficient to ask for the
technique is to compare any similarities (and conclusions of professionals in the respective fields.
differences) between the photograph of the bite mark However, Daubert dictates that judges need to
and the suspect’s dentition using a digitised model question which methods support the scientific
of the bite mark and the suspect’s dentition, both at opinions presented as testimony by experts, and this
the same scale. A scoring guide developed by ABFO requires that they understand those methods and
is recommended to evaluate the comparison and data. Daubert described that the primary
come to a conclusion. ABFO has also outlined responsibility of trial courts is to assess whether
terms used in bite mark analysis and these have been expert testimony is relevant and whether its basis is
explained in Table 1. reliable (30).
Acceptance of expert evidence Other important considerations
Courts always place emphasis on a The examiner should be a qualified
scientifically validated approach when presenting experienced forensic dental investigator and where
expert evidence or testimony. Courts require expert possible certified by the ABFO. The process of bite
evidence in cases where the expert by definition mark identification must follow the ABFO
knows far more than the court on a particular topic guidelines, and be supported by relevant peer review
or subject. Daubert guidelines provided a standard studies. The examiner should also be clear on both

JIOH Volume 4; Issue 2: May-Aug 2012 www.ispcd.org

 4

the matching and discrepancy features to provide a backdrop of scientific rigour that bite mark evidence
balanced reasoned analysis. It is only against this should be admitted (13).

Table 1. Forensically Important terms relating to Bite Marks

Terms Description

Class A feature, trait, or pattern that distinguishes a bitemark from other patterned injuries (e.g.
characteristic the finding of four approximating linear or rectangular contusions) is a class
characteristic of human incisors. Their dimensions vary in size depending upon what
inflicted the injury (maxillary or mandibular) and whether primary or permanent teeth.
The overall size of the injury will vary depending on the contributor’s arch dimension.
Thus, a bitemark class characteristic identifies the group from which it originates;
human, animal, fish, or other species.(Forensic dentistry online)

Individual Individual characteristic is a feature, a trait, or a pattern that represents an individual

characteristic variation, rather than an expected finding, within a defined group. These are of two types
which are explained below:

Arch Arch characteristic is a pattern that represents tooth arrangement within a bitemark (e.g.
characteristic a combination of rotated teeth, buccal or lingual version, mesio-distal drifting, and
horizontal alignment) that contribute to differentiation between individuals. The number,
specificity, and accurate reproduction of these arch characteristics contribute to the
overall assessment in determining the degree of confidence that a particular suspect made
the bitemark (e.g. rotation, buccal or lingual version, mesial or distal drifting, and
horizontal alignment).(Forensic dentistry online)

Dental characteristics are features or traits within a bitemark that represent individual
Dental tooth variation. The number, specificity, and accurate reproduction of these dental
characteristic characteristics (in combination with the arch characteristics) contribute to the overall
assessment in determining the degree of confidence that a particular suspect made the
bitemark (e.g., unusual wear pattern, notching, angulations, and fracture).

This term is variably defined as either rare or unusual. It can be explained as a variation
Distinctive from normal, unusual, infrequent and not one of a kind but serves to differentiate from
characteristics most others. It can also be defined as one that is highly specific, individualized having a
lesser degree of specificity than unique.

(Cited from Pretty IA 2006)

JIOH Volume 4; Issue 2: May-Aug 2012 www.ispcd.org

 5

Table 2 : Severity of Bite Marks and their Forensic significance

Nomenclature Features relating to different types of bite injuries Forensic Significance

Very Mild No individual tooth marks present, diffuse arches Low Forensic Significance
Bruising visible, may be caused by something other than
teeth.

Obvious Discrete areas associated with teeth but the skin Moderate Forensic Significance
Bruising remains intact.

Very Obvious Small lacerations associated with teeth on the most High Forensic Significance
Bruising severe aspects of the injury, likely to be assessed as
definite bite mark.

Laceration Several areas of laceration, with some bruising, High Forensic Significance
some areas of the wound may be incised, which is
unlikely to be confused with any other injury
mechanism.

Partial Few lacerations present indicating teeth as the Moderate Forensic Significance
Avulsion probable cause of the injury.

Complete Possible scalloping of the injury margins suggested Low Forensic Significance
Avulsion that teeth may have been responsible for the injury.
May not be a bite injury.
Forensic Dentistry Online [Internet] Bite mark guidelines [Cited 2009 October 10]

Conclusion bite mark analysis by expert witnesses. The dramatic

Analysing and comparing bite marks is increase in skin bite marks cases being heard by
basically made of two presumptions. The first one courts has resulted in great demand of research into
being that any human dentition has characteristic this aspect of forensic dental investigations (31).
shape, size, and pattern, and any individualistic Bite marks is one of the tools of identification in
features within the particular arch (could be a broken forensic odontology. The possibility of errors or
tooth, or a developmental anomaly, or even a simple mismatching makes this important tool less reliable
mal-eruption) (12) and the second one is that skin (32).
records these features with greater resolution such The scientific approach is a “system” and its
that it is adequate to be used in the identification, development must be carefully observed, recorded
inclusion or exclusion of a suspect as a perpetrator. and analysed such that predictions may be made
To come to conclusions, a reasoned scientific, systematically based on the observations. Similarly,
validated approach is an essential starting point. The in forensic dental identification, especially when
application of this validated approach in a rigorous analysing bite marks, forensic odontologists must
structured way is the next step. There has been a apply scientific methods to the analysis of a bite
degree of disbelief regarding the cogency of skin

JIOH Volume 4; Issue 2: May-Aug 2012 www.ispcd.org

 6

mark in a systematic manner to provide courts with 13. Weigler, S. Bite Mark Evidence: Forensic
testable evidence. Odontology and The Law. Health Matrix: Journal of
Law Medicine 1992;2(2):21.
References 14. Barbenel JC, Evans JH. Bite marks in skin –
1. Endris R. Praktische Forensische Odonto- mechanical factors. Int J Forens Dent 1977; 4: 6.
Stomatologie. Heidelberg: Kriminalistik Verlag, 15. Aboshi H, Taylor JA, Takei T, Brown KA.
1979 (In German) Comparison of bitemarks in foodstuffs by computer
2. Pretty IA, Sweet D. The scientific basis for human imaging: a case report. J Forensic Odontostomatol
bite mark analyses – a critical review. Science & 1994;12:41-44.
Justice 2001;41:85-92. 16. Ligthelm AJ, van Niekerk PJ. Comparative
3. Pretty IA, Sweet D. Digital bite mark overlays— review of bitemark cases from Pretoria, South
an analysis of effectiveness. J Forensic Sci Africa. J Forensic Odontostomatol 1994;12:23- 29.
2001;46(6):1385–90. 17. Saglam Atsü S, Gökdemir K, Kedici PS, Ikyaz
4. Sweet D. Computer assisted 2D and 3D YY. Bitemarks in forensic odontology. J Forensic
comparison of bite mark evidence and tooth Odontostomatol 1998;16:30-34.
exemplars. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Police 18. Bernitz H, Piper SE, Solheim T, van Niekerk PJ,
Research Centre, 1998. Cited in: Tuceryan et al. A Swart TJP. Comparison of bitemarks left in
Framework for Estimating Probability of a Match in foodstuffs with models of the suspects dentitions as
Forensic Bite Mark Identification. J Forensic Sci. a means of identifying a perpetrator. J Forensic
2011;56:S83-S89. Odontostomatol 2000;18:27-31.
5. Chen H, Jain AK. Dental biometrics: alignment 19. McKenna CJ, Haron MI, Brown KA, Jones AJ.
and matching of dental radiographs. IEEE Trans Bitemarks in chocolate: a case report. J Forensic
Pattern Anal Mach Intell 2005;27(8):1319–26. Odontostomatol 2000;18:10-14.
6. Jain AK, Chen H. Matching of dental X-ray 20. Sakoda S, Fujita MW, Zhu BL, Oritani S, Ishida
images for human identification. Pattern Recogn K. Wounding dynamics in distorted bitemarks: two
2004;37(7):1519–32. case reports. J Forensic Odontostomatol 2000;18:46-
7. Rothwell BR. Bite marks in forensic odontology: 51.
fact or fiction? In: Worthington P, Evans JR, editors. 21. Pretty IA, Sweet D. A look at forensic
Oral and maxillofacial surgery. Philadelphia: WB dentistry—Part 1: the role of teeth in the
Saunders, 1994:588–600. determination of human identity. Br Dent J
8. Zarkowski P. Bite mark evidence: its worth in the 2001;190(7):359–66.
eye of the expert. J Law Ethics Dent 1988;1(1):47– 22.Sweet D, Pretty IA. A look at forensic
57. dentistry—part 2: teeth as weapons of violence—
9. Pretty IA, Sweet D. A comprehensive identification of bitemark perpetrators. Br Dent J
examination of bitemark evidence in the American 2001;190(8):415–8.
legal system. In: Proceedings of the 52th annual 23.Pretty IA, Turnbull MD. Lack of dental
meeting of the American academy of forensic uniqueness between two bite mark suspects. J
sciences; Feb 21–26, 2000, Reno, NV. Colorado Forensic Sci 2001;46:1487-1491.
Springs, CO: American Academy of Forensic 24. Sheasby DR, MacDonald DG. A forensic
Sciences, 2000:146. classification of distortion in human bite marks. For
10. Hale A. The admissibility of bitemark evidence. Sci Int 2001;122:75-78.
South Calif Law R 1978;51(3):309–34. 25. Wright FD, Dailey JC. Human bite marks in
11. American Board of Forensic Odontology. ABFO forensic dentistry. Dental Clinics of North America
bite mark methodology guidelines. In: Bowers CM, 2001;45:365-397.
Bell GL, editors. Manual of forensic odontology. 26. Rötzscher K, Pilz W, Solheim T. Bissspur –
Montpelier, VT: American Society of Forensic Zahnspur. In: B. Madea, B. Brinkmann (Eds)
Odontology, 1995:334–7. Handbuch gerichtliche Medizin Vol 2. Springer
12. Dorion, RBJ.. Bitemark Evidence. Marcel Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 2003:1699-1728.
Dekker publishing New York, 2005 ISBN: 0-8247- 27. Thali MJ, Braun M, Markwalder TH,
5414-X. Brueschweiler W, Zollinger U, Malik NJ, Yen K,
Dirnhofer R. Bite mark documentation and analysis:

JIOH Volume 4; Issue 2: May-Aug 2012 www.ispcd.org

 7

the forensic 3D/CAD supported photogrammetry 32. Pretty IA. Bite Mark Index. Self-Published by
approach. For Sci Int 2003;135:115-121. Iain Pretty, Manchester University
28. Lessig R, Benthaus S. Forensische Odonto- ([email protected]). 2006:1-2.
Stomatologie. Rechtsmedizin 2003;13:161-168. 33.Forensic Dentistry Online [Internet]
29. Saks M.J, Faigman D.L. Expert Evidence After Bitemark_guidelines [Cited 2010 October 10]
Daubert. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci. 2005;1:105-30. Availablefrom:http://www.forensicdentistryonline.or
30. Bernitz H, Owen J.H, van Heerden W.F, g/Forensic_pages_1/bitemark_guidelines.htm
Solheim T. An Integrated Technique for the analysis
of skin bite marks. J Forensic Sci 2008;53:1:194-8. Source of Support: Nil
31. Talabani N.A, Moussawy NDA, Baker F.A, and
Mohammed H.A. Digital Analysis of Experimental Conflict of Interest: No Financial Conflict
Human Bitemarks: Application of Two New
Methods. J Forensic Sci,. 2006;51(6):1372-5.

JIOH Volume 4; Issue 2: May-Aug 2012 www.ispcd.org

 8

JIOH Volume 4; Issue 2: May-Aug 2012 www.ispcd.org