350 Forensic dentistry
serial hollow-volume overlays at various operator-controlled angulations and
levels to compatible images of the injury could greatly enhance the process.
Indirect three-dimensional methods comparing three-dimensional depic-
tions of the teeth and merged two- and three-dimensional exemplars of the
bitemark will be even better. Thali, de las Heras, and Dalle-Grave et al. have
taken steps to develop three-dimensional methods.51,52 Computer-generated
two-dimensional hollow-volume overlays’ days as the so-called gold standard
may be rightfully numbered.
14.3.3.2 Reporting Conclusions and Opinions
The ABFO Bitemark Analysis Guidelines were revised in 2006. The revision
included changes in recommended terminology for both indicating degree
of confidence that an injury is a bitemark and relating or associating bite-
mark and suspected biters. Gone are the confusing and numerous terms for
confidence that a mark is a bitemark that once included “more likely than
not” and the now famous “less likely than not.” They have all been replaced
by simple and straightforward choices: “bitemark,” “suggestive” [of a bite-
mark], and “not a bitemark.”^35 These changes are to be applauded. The
changes for terms relating bitemarks to suspected biters are equally simple
and straightforward. In the order listed in the manual they are “ reasonable
dental/medical certainty,” “probable,” “exclusion,” and “inconclusive.” They
are listed in the order of the highest positive correlation between biter and
bitee to the lowest positive correlation. Had they been listed in the order of
degree of certainty, “exclusion” would be listed first, followed by “ reasonable
dental/medical certainty,” “probable,” and “inconclusive,” reflecting the
maxim that in bitemark analysis exclusion is both more possible and more
certain. In practical casework these guidelines present a problem. Some
cases fall into that chasm between probable and exclusion, causing forensic
odontologists to lose sleep trying to find features that would either raise or
lower the determination. In the end, some cases will go neither up nor down
and end up in an indeterminate state. Many odontologists have adopted
DNA terminology and have chosen “cannot exclude” to characterize those
cases. As these are guidelines, not standards, every forensic odontologist
will have to determine how to handle those cases until the ABFO considers
revising the guidelines.
The ABFO Standards for Bitemark Terminology were modified in 2005.
- Terms ensuring unconditional identification of a perpetrator, or
without doubt, are not sanctioned as a final conclusion. - Terms used in a different manner from the recommended guidelines
should be explained in the body of a report or in testimony. - All boarded forensic odontologists are responsible for being familiar
with the standards set forth in this document.^35