352 Forensic dentistrygeneral population sample demonstrates the uniqueness of the human den-
tition beyond any reasonable doubt, thus placing the odontologist’s state-
ments about individuality beyond the realm of theory and into the realm of
supported fact.”^54 Had these two groups of researchers reviewed an earlier
paper published on the subject, by MacFarlane et al. in 1974? If so, they
did not include the paper in their list of references. The study involved the
evaluation of dental characteristics seen in two hundred study casts of adult
dental patients. MacFarlane et al. concluded that many of the features they
examined and reported were interrelated. Features in the same arch and in
the opposing arch had an effect on the positions of other teeth. MacFarlane
et al. concluded that they could not combine and multiply features that were
not independent, and that they had not determined that the human denti-
tion was unique.^55 In 2007, Kieser et al. published a paper utilizing a novel
geometric morphometric and procrustes superimposition technique to com-
pare the biting surfaces of the anterior teeth of fifty orthodontic dental casts.
In this study the researchers confronted MacFarlane head-on and stated that
because the earlier study had “relied on highly subjective examinations of
the casts by multiple examiners and failed to publish a table of their results,”
the conclusions in MacFarlane on the independence of the features were
flawed. They further discussed the independence of the variables and state
that their results “suggest a low, non-significant level of correlation between
dental size/shape and arch shape,” leading them to conclude that “the prod-
uct rule can be applied to the assessment of these data,” and “it appears that
the incisal surfaces of the anterior dentition are in fact unique.” They are
careful to state that they did no investigation into whether or not the unique
features would be transferred to skin.^56
In counterpoint, critics of these conclusions concerning the statistical
uniqueness of the human dentition, as well as bitemark analysis in general,
abound. The criticisms come from within as well as outside forensic odon-
tology groups. Most of the critical articles center on the lack of scientific
vigor in the methods and conclusions of forensic dentists in bitemark cases.
Saks and Koehler concluded in a 2005 article: “Simply put, we envision a
paradigm shift in the traditional forensic identification sciences in which
untested assumptions and semi-informed guesswork are replaced by a sound
scientific foundation and justifiable protocols.”^57 The foundations and pro-
tocols they envisioned include the implementation of research models that
challenge the core assumptions of forensic fields, reveal the strengths and
weaknesses of earlier methods, and apply new knowledge on a case-by-case
basis. Scientists must select the methods that most closely apply to each case.
They encouraged the collection of data on the frequency at which attributes
and variations occur and the development of objective, computer-aided, or
other programs to perform the actions that may currently be performed
more subjectively. Finally, they recommended increased consultation, true