364 Forensic dentistryreferred to as the NAS report, contains a fairly comprehensive analysis of
the current state of forensic science as it is practiced in the U.S. Chapter 5,
Descriptions of Some Forensic Science Disciplines, details their surveys
of specific areas of forensic science. Included in that list and beginning on
page 5–35 of that chapter is a section titled Forensic Odontology. The only
discussion of any aspect of forensic odontology other than bitemark analy-
sis appears in the first paragraph, “Although the identification of humans
remains by their dental characteristics is well established in the forensic
science disciplines, there is continuing dispute over the value and scien-
tific validity of comparing and identifying bite marks.” (5–35) Many of the
problems with the scientific foundation of bitemark analysis noted earlier in
this chapter (Sections 14.4 and 14.6) are repeated in the NAS report. They
summarize by stating, “Although the majority of forensic odontologists are
satisfied that bite marks can demonstrate sufficient detail for positive identi-
fication, no scientific studies support this assessment, and no large popula-
tion studies have been conducted.” They also state, “In numerous instances,
experts diverge widely in their evaluations of the same bite mark evidence.
The committee received no evidence of an existing scientific basis for iden-
tifying an individual to the exclusion of all others.” (5–37) They closed the
section on Forensic Odontology by stating, “Some research is warranted in
order to identify the circumstances within which the methods of forensic
odontology can provide probative value.”
The authors think that the assessment by the committee’s report was
a fair and reasonable evaluation in whole but included questionable con-
clusions drawn from the flawed information from the various reports and
analyses of data from the now infamous Bitemark Workshop #4. This in no
way absolves forensic dentists from the responsibility to perform research
and establish scientific bases for bitemark analysis. The final NAS report
conclusion seen at the end of the previous paragraph is mildly encouraging.
The authors think that considerable research supported by funding is war-
ranted and needed.
Bitemark analysis is too valuable to the investigation and adjudication
of certain crimes to be abandoned, discounted, or overlooked. The use of
bitemark analysis to exclude suspects is powerful and important. The sci-
entific basis for associating unknown biters to tooth marks or bitemarks
must be established. Currently, the association of one individual, in an open
population, to a bite pattern on human skin to the highest level of associa-
tion currently recommended by the ABFO, that is, to a reasonable dental,
medical, or scientific certainty, and based on pattern analysis alone, cannot
be scientifically supported. In closed or limited population cases, it may be
possible to associate a biter and a bitemark with reasonable dental, medical,
or scientific certainty for that limited population.