336 Forensic dentistryhad no missing or malposed teeth. This information would come, not from
comparison, but from the profile generated from the analysis of the mark.14.2.4 Individual Characteristics
The ABFO manual defines an individual characteristic as “a feature, trait, or
pattern that represents an individual variation rather than an expected finding
within a defined group.”^35 Individual characteristics are specific features found
within the class characteristics. The ABFO manual distinguishes between
individual characteristics as either arch or dental characteristics. Arch charac-
teristics that qualify as individual distinguish one person’s arch from another’s
and may include “a combination of rotated teeth, [teeth in] buccal or lingual
version, mesio-distal [sic, mesial or distal] drifting [of teeth], and [variations
in] horizontal alignment [of teeth that] contribute to differentiation between
individuals.” A dental characteristic within a bitemark is one that is specific to
an individual tooth and is “a feature or trait within a bitemark that represents
an individual tooth variation.” Examples include the recording in a bitemark
of the contour of the lingual surface of an upper anterior tooth with a depres-
sion indicating access for a root canal. A feature that makes one tooth differ-
ent from all others is a dental characteristic and may include such things as
fractures, wear patterns, developmental defects, and restorations. The ABFO
manual further states, “The number, specificity, and accurate reproduction of
these dental characteristics in combination with the arch characteristics con-
tribute to the overall assessment in determining the degree of confidence that
a particular suspect made the bitemark (e.g., unusual wear pattern, notching,
angulations, fracture).”^35 When seen in bitemarks, individual characteristics
allow the forensic dentist to eliminate, limit, or identify suspects depending on
their degree of distinctiveness (Bernstein in Dorion^36 ).
The majority of patterned injury cases analyzed by forensic odontolo-
gists involve one or more suspected human bite patterns in human skin. The
quality of the evidence, including the amount of information in each mark
and the distinctiveness of the pattern, dictate whether or not an association
with the biter can be established. While much information is available in the
literature on methodology, a standardized system of analyzing marks and
evaluating the evidentiary value of those marks has not yet been developed,
tested, and accepted by the forensic odontology community.
14.2.5 Bitemark Frequency and Distribution, and
Biter Demographics
Several forensic dentists, including Harvey (1976), Vale and Noguchi (1983),
Pretty and Sweet (2000), and Freeman, Senn, and Arendt (2005), have pub-
lished studies of the frequency and distribution of bitemarks.5,37–39 Freeman