Forensic Dentistry, Second Edition

346 Forensic dentistry

but the disagreements would be based upon the same determining factors,

known to all, allowing subsequent examiners to judge for themselves.

It would also assist legal officials and others to assess the probative value of

specific bitemarks and of specific bitemark opinions. After development, the

system should be used to assess all bitemarks for forensic value. Those that

are scored as substandard should not be used for comparison to suspects.

As earlier stated, these lower quality injuries may be helpful for develop-

ing biter profiles that lead to exclusions but are not suitable for comparison

to suspected biters’ dental information. Those marks that have substantial

forensic value allow proceeding to the next phase, analysis of the bitemark

injury or injuries. Those analyses should be completed before comparisons to

any suspect material are initiated.

14.3.2.2 Methods of Analysis
Current methods include pattern, metric, microscopic, three-dimensional,
and computer assisted. All are mentioned or discussed in detail in the ABFO
Diplomates Reference Manual^35 and Bitemark Evidence.^36 They are also dis-
cussed in other works, including a chapter by Souviron, Sweet, Golden, and
Bowers in the Spitz and Fisher’s forensic pathology text^43 and a chapter by
Souviron in the Dolinak et al. forensic pathology text.^44
Methods that utilize three-dimensional analysis are currently under-
developed and rarely used. They and computer-assisted technologies must be
explored, developed, and implemented. Forensic odontologists must commit
to continually search for new methods to improve and validate the methods
of analysis.
14.3.2.2.1 Variables and Bitemark Analysis The bitemark is a pattern
left by teeth that was actively produced by a biter. Teeth marks can be pro-
duced passively. Technically, bitemark patterns can be made by humans or
animals, land and aquatic, by birds, and by some insects. Forensic odontolo-
gists must know and understand the differences and be able to explain them
to investigators, litigators, and triers of fact. In previous sections we discussed
that the initial investigator of a patterned injury must consider whether the
pattern is a human bitemark or an injury that mimics a human bitemark.
The odontologist must be able to locate and identify, if present, class, indi-
vidual, and specific dental characteristics. When considering the dynamic
actions possible when one human bites another, the variables are legion. The
volume of material bitten is significant: Was a large amount of tissue taken
into the mouth or a small nibble? These two simple possible scenarios can
change the appearance of the pattern, even when made by the same teeth.
Unfortunately, in violent exchanges between humans the possible scenarios
are never only two and they are never simple. Consider that there are two
humans involved, the biter and the person bitten. Both can and will move,