Uniqueness of the Dentition as Impressed in Human Skin: A Cadaver Model

Evaluation of Bitemark Analysis's Potential Application in Forensic Identification: A Systematic Review

Bitemark analysis involves the examination of both patterned injuries and contextual circumstances, combining morphological and positional data. Considering the uniqueness of human dentition, bitemarks caused by teeth on skin or impressions on flexible surfaces could assist in human identification.

AIMS

to investigate the available literature systematically and evaluate the scientific evidence published over the past decade concerning the potential application of bitemark analysis in forensic identification.

METHODS

Two researchers meticulously searched electronic databases from January 2012 to December 2023, including Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Adhering to the PRISMA statement guidelines, this review employed appropriate medical subject headings (MeSHs) and free-text synonyms. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied during article retrieval.

RESULTS

The findings yielded controversial outcomes. Approximately two-thirds of the articles concluded that bitemark analysis is useful in forensic identification, while the remaining articles did not report statistically significant outcomes and cautioned against relying solely on bitemark analysis for identification.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors assert that bitemark analysis can be a reliable and complementary method for forensic identification, contingent upon the establishment and adoption of a universally accepted global protocol for data collection, processing, and interpretation. Undoubtedly, recent years have witnessed a notable increase in research focused on bitemark identification, driven by the goal of achieving quantitative, objective, reproducible, and accurate results.

Forensic Confirmation Bias: Do Jurors Discount Examiners Who Were Exposed to Task-Irrelevant Information?*, †

Knowledge of task-irrelevant information influences judgments of forensic science evidence and thereby undermines their probative value (i.e., forensic confirmation bias). The current studies tested whether laypeople discount the opinion of a forensic examiner who had a priori knowledge of biasing information (i.e., a defendant's confession) that could have influenced his opinion. In three experiments, laypeople (N = 765) read and evaluated a trial summary which, for some, included testimony from a forensic examiner who was either unaware or aware of the defendant's confession, and either denied or admitted that it could have impacted his opinion. When the examiner admitted that the confession could have influenced his opinion, laypeople generally discounted his testimony, as evidenced by their verdicts and other ratings. However, when the examiner denied being vulnerable to bias, laypeople tended to believe him-and they weighted his testimony as strongly as that of the confession-unaware examiner. In short, laypeople generally failed to recognize the superiority of forensic science judgments made by context-blind examiners, and they instead trusted examiners who claimed to be impervious to bias. As such, our findings highlight the value of implementing context management procedures in forensic laboratories so as not to mislead fact-finders.

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.

Exploring the degrees of distortion in simulated human bite marks

The properties of the skin and the posture of the body during photographic recording are factors that cause distortion in the bite mark injury. This study aimed to explore the degree of distortion between a ‘touch mark’ (method 1) and a ‘bite mark’ (method 2) on the left upper arm at three different positions (arm relaxed; arm flexed in two different positions). A pair of dental casts with biting edges coated in ink was used to create a mark in 30 subjects (6 ♂, 24 ♀) aged 20–50 years old. Photographs were taken using a Nikon DX digital camera (D5000). The mesiodistal widths and angle of rotations of both upper right central incisor and lower right central incisor and the inter-canine distances were analysed and compared with the true measurements using Adobe Photoshop CC 2017. Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS Statistics 22 applying a 2 (mark type) × 3 (position) repeated measures ANOVA. For all measures studied, there was a statistically significant difference between mark types and positions. In the case of bite marks, a great degree of distortion was detected, and this increased further when changing the position of the arm. The findings demonstrated that skin properties and posture influence distortion. This could lead to inaccurate measurements and misleading pattern interpretation of bite mark injuries.

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.

Effect of systematic dental shape modification in bitemarks

Studies on human cadaver models have reported significant levels of distortion of bitemarks in skin, indicating that tooth characteristics are not reliably transferred and recorded in the bitten subject. Moreover, matches among the anterior biting dentition in open population studies have been found. This prompts the question as to what degree of difference in shape will distinguish one dentition from another as reflected in a bitemark. In order to understand how these variables appear on skin, 10 dental casts with systematic variations in tooth positions were produced. The height of the lateral incisors was systematically altered in 1mm increments up to 3mm and lateral incisor/canines were altered in facial/lingual displacement in 1mm increments up to 5mm. Each of the models was used to produce a series of 10 repeated bites, distributed over arms and legs of un-embalmed cadavers. Landmark-based geometric morphometrics were used for analysis of digital images of the bitemarks. Results indicate that alterations of height and displacement of particular teeth affected the position of impressions created by the adjacent teeth. Displacement of one lateral incisor/canine led to a relative shift in impressions of the central incisors and unaltered canines, while height alteration of the lateral incisors led to a shift in relative position of central incisors as recorded in the bitemark. The prominence of displacements was more pronounced in the bitemarks than in images of the dentition used to make the bites, thus the bitemarks tended to exaggerate the differences. It was found that a displacement of 5mm between teeth allowed for reliable distinction between bitemarks. No such threshold of distinction could be established for differences in height of teeth under these experimental conditions. The effect of distortion was more significant in the mandibular than maxillary arch, suggesting that the mandible exhibits higher variation than the maxilla, as impressed in skin. Numerous bitemarks also exhibited arch flattening, consistent with recent studies showing arch width as the principal variable in a bitemark.

The examination and identification of bite marks in foods using 3D scanning and 3D comparison methods

Bite mark analysis offers the opportunity to identify the biter based on the individual characteristics of the dentitions. Normally, the main focus is on analysing bite mark injuries on human bodies, but also, bite marks in food may play an important role in the forensic investigation of a crime. This study presents a comparison of simulated bite marks in different kinds of food with the dentitions of the presumed biter. Bite marks were produced by six adults in slices of buttered bread, apples, different kinds of Swiss chocolate and Swiss cheese. The time-lapse influence of the bite mark in food, under room temperature conditions, was also examined. For the documentation of the bite marks and the dentitions of the biters, 3D optical surface scanning technology was used. The comparison was performed using two different software packages: the ATOS modelling and analysing software and the 3D studio max animation software. The ATOS software enables an automatic computation of the deviation between the two meshes. In the present study, the bite marks and the dentitions were compared, as well as the meshes of each bite mark which were recorded in the different stages of time lapse. In the 3D studio max software, the act of biting was animated to compare the dentitions with the bite mark. The examined food recorded the individual characteristics of the dentitions very well. In all cases, the biter could be identified, and the dentitions of the other presumed biters could be excluded. The influence of the time lapse on the food depends on the kind of food and is shown on the diagrams. However, the identification of the biter could still be performed after a period of time, based on the recorded individual characteristics of the dentitions.

A paradigm shift in the analysis of bitemarks

There have been major changes in the approach to and philosophy surrounding bite-mark analyses in recent years. This has resulted in a paradigm shift. Concentrating on three important areas, this review aims to describe the shift in the bite-mark paradigm following recent research studies, the increasing numbers of wrongful convictions that are associated at least in part with bite-mark analyses, and the publication of the United States National Academy of Sciences report entitled Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. The article provides an update on the current context and status of bite-mark analysis. Given the present combination of critical elements, a new level of caution that includes the use of a careful scientific approach to casework, increased reproducibility of conclusions by independent analysts, and hypothesis-driven research is needed. Bitemarks have the ability to exonerate the innocent, protect children from harmful caregivers, and convict the guilty. However, they also may be the enemy of natural justice.

Uniqueness in the forensic identification sciences--fact or fiction?

Fingerprint analysts, firearms and toolmark examiners, and forensic odontologists often rely on the uniqueness proposition in order to support their theory of identification. However, much of the literature claiming to have proven uniqueness in the forensic identification sciences is methodologically weak, and suffers flaws that negate any such conclusion being drawn. The finding of uniqueness in any study appears to be an overstatement of the significance of its results, and in several instances, this claim is made despite contrary data being presented. The mathematical and philosophical viewpoint regarding this topic is that obtaining definitive proof of uniqueness is considered impossible by modern scientific methods. More importantly, there appears to be no logical reason to pursue such research, as commentators have established that uniqueness is not the essential requirement for forming forensic conclusions. The courts have also accepted this in several recent cases in the United States, and have dismissed the concept of uniqueness as irrelevant to the more fundamental question of the reliability of the forensic analysis.

Is current bite mark analysis a misnomer?

Four human-to-human bite mark cases in which forensic odontological opinion was found to be in error, or at best deeply divided between experts, are described. These are used to illustrate that there is a growing awareness on the part of the legal profession that bite mark opinions by experts may often be little more than that and that these opinions often cannot be substantiated given the paucity of rigorous scientific evaluation, and will therefore be increasingly challenged. This may not best serve justice and so it is argued that forensic odontology needs to bring more scientific rigour to the evaluation of bite marks. This may threaten to disenfranchise some of the current practitioners and there may be some resistance to change. Forensic odontology is not the only identification science facing such problems, but nevertheless a paradigm shift is predicted in the way bite mark evidence will have to be gathered and evaluated in the future. Some new scientific approaches are described that strive to unravel some of the most basic problems confronting our profession when we attempt to make morphometric comparisons between injuries and the dentition of the biter. A need to capture the actions and consequences of biting in 3D dimensions and simultaneously in real-time is proposed as a path of investigation highly likely to bring some clarity to a confused situation. There is also an urgent need for the ongoing controversy between some of our eminent peers relating to the assumed uniqueness, or otherwise, of the human anterior dentition to be resolved.