Expert Interpretation of Bitemark Injuries-A Contemporary Qualitative Study

Bite marks: To opine or not to opine?

Much has been written about bite mark comparisons and bite mark analysis. It has largely been written for, and remained within the domain of, the forensic odontologist despite the limited number of such specialists and the even smaller subset who have expertise in this area. For those health professionals who work in the field of clinical forensic medicine, most will not have access to a forensic odontologist. Courts can be reticent about the costs involved in obtaining another expert opinion. For health professionals, who will likely encounter more bite marks in their career than forensic odontologists, the difficulty is knowing what can legitimately be opined about such injuries.

The Error in "Error Rate": Why Error Rates Are So Needed, Yet So Elusive

Establishing error rates is crucial for knowing how well one is performing, determining whether improvement is needed, measuring whether interventions are effective, as well as for providing transparency. However, the flurry of activities in establishing error rates for the forensic sciences has largely overlooked some fundamental issues that make error rates a problematic construct and limit the ability to obtain a meaningful error rate. These include knowing the ground truth, establishing appropriate databases, determining what counts as an error, characterizing what is an acceptable error rate, ecological validity, and transparency within the adversarial legal system. Without addressing these practical and theoretical challenges, the very notion of a meaningful error rate is limited.

Epidermis and Enamel: Insights Into Gnawing Criticisms of Human Bitemark Evidence

Critics describe forensic dentists' management of bitemark evidence as junk science with poor sensitivity and specificity and state that linkages to a biter are unfounded. Those vocal critics, supported by certain media, characterize odontologists' previous errors as egregious and petition government agencies to render bitemark evidence inadmissible. Odontologists acknowledge that some practitioners have made past mistakes. However, it does not logically follow that the errors of a few identify a systemic failure of bitemark analysis. Scrutiny of the contentious cases shows that most occurred 20 to 40 years ago. Since then, research has been ongoing and more conservative guidelines, standards, and terminology have been adopted so that past errors are no longer reflective of current safeguards. The authors recommend a comprehensive root analysis of problem cases to be used to determine all the factors that contributed to those previous problems. The legal community also shares responsibility for some of the past erroneous convictions. Currently, most proffered bitemark cases referred to odontologists do not reach courts because those forensic dentists dismiss them as unacceptable or insufficient for analysis. Most bitemark evidence cases have been properly managed by odontologists. Bitemark evidence and testimony remain relevant and have made significant contributions in the justice system.

Uniqueness of the anterior dentition three-dimensionally assessed for forensic bitemark analysis

The uniqueness of the human dentition (UHD) is an important concept in the comparative process in bitemark analysis. During this analysis, the incisal edges of the suspects' teeth are matched with the bitemarks collected from the victim's body or crime scenes. Despite playing an essential part to exclude suspects, the UHD contained in the involved incisal tooth edges remains an assumption on bitemark level. The present study was aimed, first, to investigate three-dimensionally (3D) the UHD within different quantities of dental material from the incisal edges; second, to test these outcomes in a bidimensional (2D) simulation. Four-hundred forty-five dental casts were collected to compose 4 study groups: I - randomly-selected subjects, II - orthodontically treated subjects, III - twins and IV - orthodontically treated twins. Additionally, 20 dental casts were included to create threshold groups on subjects from whom the dental impressions were taken at 2 different moments (Group V). All the dental casts were digitalized with an automated motion device (XCAD 3D^® (XCADCAM Technology^®, São Paulo, SP, Brazil). The digital cast files (DCF) were integrated in Geomagic Studio^® (3D Systems^®, Rock Hill, SC, USA) software package (GS) for cropping, automated superimposition and pair-wise comparisons. All the DCF were cropped remaining 3 mm (part 1), 2 mm (part 2) and 1 mm (part 3) from the incisal edges of the anterior teeth. For a 2D validation, slices of 1 mm, not including incisal edges (part 4), were also cropped. These procedures were repeated in Group V, creating specific thresholds for each of the study parts. The 4 study groups were compared with its respective threshold using ANOVA test with statistical significance of 5%. Groups I, II and III did not differ from the corresponding threshold (Group V) in all study parts (p > 0.05). Scientific evidence to support the UHD was not observed in the current study. Bitemark analysis should not be disregarded but considered carefully when the suspects present similar dental alignment and morphology, such as in orthodontically treated subjects and twins, respectively.

Effects of skin elasticity on bite mark distortion

Bite marks have been reported to have an evidentiary value similar to fingerprints. We believed bite mark distortion would impact the accuracy and reliability of bite mark interpretation. Inked denture-stamps were substituted for actual bite marks and were placed onto 40 participating volunteers' shoulders. Four changes in arm position were photographed using an ABFO #2 reference scale. The measurements of individual tooth widths and intercanine distances in each position were compared. The maximum tooth width distortion observed was 53.8%, whereas the maximum intercanine distance distortion was 41.9%. Distortion was found to increase with age and weight and was non-uniform across a dental arch.