Digital analysis of experimental human bitemarks: application of two new methods

Bitemark determination in forensic odontology is commonly performed by comparing the morphology of the dentition of the suspect with life-sized photographs of injury on the victim's skin using transparent overlays or computers. The purpose of this study is to investigate the suitability of two new different methods for identification of bitemarks by digital analysis. A sample of 50 volunteers was asked to make experimental bitemarks on the arms of each other. Stone study casts were prepared from upper and lower dental arches of each volunteer. The bitemarks and the study casts were photographed; the photos were entered into the computer and Adobe Photoshop software program was applied to analyze the results. Two methods (2D polyline and Painting) of identification were used. In the 2D polyline method, fixed points were chosen on the tips of the canines and a straight line was drawn between the two fixed points in the arch (intercanine line). Straight lines passing between the incisal edges of the incisors were drawn vertically on the intercanine line; the lines and angles created were calculated. In the painting method, identification was based on canine-to-canine distance, tooth width and the thickness, and rotational value of each tooth. The results showed that both methods were applicable. However, the 2D polyline method was more convenient to use and gave prompt computer-read results, whereas the painting method depended on the visual reading of the operator.     

Expert Interpretation of Bitemark Injuries—A Contemporary Qualitative Study

This study attempts to characterize the nature of disagreement among odontologists in determining the fundamental properties of suspected bitemark injuries. Fifteen odontologists were asked to freely comment on six images of supposed bitemarks. Qualitative analysis using a grounded theory approach revealed that practitioner agreement was at best fair, with wide‐ranging opinions on the origin, circumstance, and characteristics of the wound given for all six images. More experienced practitioners (>10 years) tended to agree with each other less than those who had 10 years or less experience in forensic odontology. The differences in opinions can be at least partly accounted for by the inconsistent nature of approaches used by different practitioners in assessing bitemark evidence. The results of this study indicate that more definitive guidelines as to the assessment of bitemarks as patterned injuries should be developed to ensure the highest possible level of practitioner agreement.     

Statistical Evidence for the Similarity of the Human Dentition

Abstract: Recent scrutiny of forensic science has focused on unreliability of expert witness testimony when based on statements of individuality. In bitemark analysis, assumptions regarding uniqueness of the dentition have been based on use of the product rule while ignoring correlation and nonuniformity of dental arrangement. To examine the effect of these factors, two separate sets of scanned dental models (n = 172 and n = 344) were measured and statistically tested to determine match rates. Results were compared to those of a prior study. Seven and 16 matches of the six anterior lower teeth were found in the respective data sets. Correlations and nonuniform distributions of tooth positions were observed. Simulation tests were performed to verify results. Results indicate that given experimental measurement parameters, statements of dental uniqueness with respect to bitemark analysis in an open population are unsupportable and that use of the product rule is inappropriate.