PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16370436

[Analysis of bite marks].

Marc Spiessens·Bram Van der Velden·Guy Willems
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Precise photographs, supplemented by impressions are used to research and compare bite marks. Different materials for impressions are available to the forensic odontologist. Subsequently, the acquired information of the bite mark will be compared with the dentition of a suspect through photographs, intra- and extra oral examination and impressions. The overlay, which can be created using a variety of methods, allows the comparison between the bite mark and the dentition of the suspect. Among the most commonly used are hand-tracing of study models, wax bites or photocopies, or the radio-opaque wax bite method. Thanks to modern technology and the use of computers, analyses of bite marks have gradually become more accurate. Current research carried out at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven will demonstrate whether the computer program ForensicIQ is able to offer an even more precise comparison between a given bite mark and the dentition of a suspect. By no means should bite mark analysis alone be allowed to lead to a guilty verdict, but it will offer the opportunity to exclude a suspect from a crime when the data do not correspond.

Explore related subjects

Bites, HumanDental Impression TechniqueForensic DentistryHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedModels, DentalOdontometryPhotography, DentalSalivaJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Marc Spiessens, Bram Van der Velden, Guy Willems. 2005. [Analysis of bite marks].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16370436/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Problem-based analysis of bitemark misidentifications: the role of DNA.

The dental literature concerning bitemark methodology is surprisingly thin and sorely lacking in rigorous scientific testing. Contra to this fact, the bitemark legal caselaw is surprisingly strong and is used as a substitute for reliability testing of bite mark identification. In short, the Judiciary and the Prosecutors have loved forensic odontologists. This paper will focus on the author's participation as a Defense expert over the last seven years in over 50 bitemark prosecutions and judicial appeals. This sampling will act as an anecdotal survey of actual bitemark evidence. Certain trends regarding methods and reliability issues of odontologists will be discussed. Several of these cases have been later judicially overturned due to DNA analyses after the defendants were originally convicted. These diagnostic misadventures are being vocally discussed in the US media by news and legal investigators who are asking hard questions. The forensic dentistry community, however, is curiously silent. What actions are necessary by the profession to improve this assault on the 52-year tradition of bite mark identifications in the United States?

Bites, Human↗
PubMed2006

The barriers to achieving an evidence base for bitemark analysis.

Forensic dentistry is the union of two scientific disciplines, both of which are undergoing a renewed scientific rigor. In forensic science the advent of the Daubert ruling has required that judges assess the forensic value of 'expert testimony' ensuring that techniques, methodologies and practices are not only commonly accepted (as was the previous hurdle during the Frye era) but that error rates, assessment of reliability and validation studies are published to support their use. This new degree of judicial scrutiny has been mirrored in the field of dentistry itself, where organisations search and summarise randomised controlled trials in order to recommend best practice and devise clinical care pathways that are firmly grounded in proven scientific research. Despite the obvious drive from both of these professions, forensic dentistry, and in particular the sub-discipline of bitemark analysis, has been remarkably slow to address the obvious deficiencies in the evidence base that underpins this element of forensic science. Reviews of the literature reveal that the vast majority of published works are case reports, and very little primary literature exists. This paper reviews those studies that have assessed aspects of bitemark analysis including the crucial issue of the uniqueness of the human dentition; the application of transparent overlays and the application of statistical probabilities in bitemark conclusions. There are numerous barriers to undertaking high quality research in the field of bitemark analysis, the most important of which is the use of a gold-standard that is acceptable both in terms of diagnostic research but is also forensically relevant. If bitemark analysis is to continue to play a role in the judicial process then there is an urgent need for high quality studies that meet the levels of forensic and scientific scrutiny applied to other disciplines within the criminal justice system. Studies are required to determine not that the human dentition is unique, but how this asserted uniqueness is represented on human skin and other substrates. The error rates associated with the analysis of bitemarks are required on a procedural level as well as an individual practitioner basis and scales and interpretative indices of bitemark severity and forensic significance should be validated and introduced into common use.

Bites, Human↗