Forensic Dentistry, Second Edition

Bitemarks 351

The ABFO Standards for Bitemark Analytical Methods were modified

in 2006.

1. All diplomates of the American Board of Forensic Odontology are
   responsible for being familiar with the most common analytical
   methods and should utilize appropriate analytical methods.


2. A list of all the evidence analyzed and the specific analytical proce-
   dures should be included in the body of the final report. All avail-
   able evidence associated with the bitemark must be reviewed prior to
   rendering an expert opinion.


3. Any new analytical methods not listed in the previously described
   list of analytical methods should be explained in the body of the
   report. New analytical methods should be scientifically sound and
   verifiable by other forensic experts. New analytical methods should,
   if possible , be substantiated with the use of one or more of the
   accepted techniques listed in these guidelines.^35

14.4 Scientific Considerations,

Bitemark Issues, and Controversies

14.4.1 The Uniqueness of the Human Dentition

The concept that every person’s teeth are unique is widely accepted by
dentists. This is based on clinical experience and has not been conclusively
scientifically established. Bitemark analysis is based on the concept that the
biting surfaces of the anterior dentition, usually the six or eight most anterior
maxillary and mandibular teeth, are sufficiently distinctive that well-trained
forensic odontologists can distinguish the incisal portion of one person’s
anterior teeth from another’s. This has not been sufficiently scientifically
tested and confirmed. There is little doubt that if the features of human teeth
are scrutinized with a fine enough measuring device, and if that device takes
into account all three spatial axes, that is, three-dimensional analysis, then
everyone’s teeth are in fact unique. Sognnaes, Rawson, Gratt, and Nguyen
in 1982^53 and Rawson, Ommen, Kinard, Johnson, and Yfantis in 1984^54
attempted in their research to establish the concept of uniqueness. The 1982
article examined the teeth of five pairs of monozygotic twins by making test
bites then comparing the patterns. The researchers found that there were sig-
nificant variations between the twin pairs, concluding that “identical twins
are not dentally identical.”^53 In the 1984 article “Statistical Evidence for the
Individuality of the Human Dentition,” the authors proposed “to establish
the scientific base for the statistical analysis of the uniqueness of the human
dentition” and stated as a conclusion, “This mathematical evaluation of a