CONTENTS

 Introduction
 History

 Classification

 Collection

 DNA sampling

 References

 Conclusion
INTRODUCTION

Forensic Odontology is the application of

dentistry in legal proceedings deriving from
any evidence that pertains to teeth.
OR

Area of dentistry concerned with the correct

management, examination , evaluation &
presentation of dental evidence in civil/criminal
legal proceedings in the interest of justice
( Neville)
A SOURCE OF IDENTIFICATION

 Every human body ages in a similar

manner, the teeth also follow a semi-
standardized pattern. These quantitative
measurements help establish relative age of
person.

 Each human has an individual set of teeth

which can be traced back to established
dental records to find missing individuals.
 Teeth is made of enamel (hardest tissue of
the body) - withstand trauma
(decomposition, heat degradation, water
immersion, and desiccation) better than other
tissues in body.

 Teeth are a source of DNA: dental pulp or a

crushed tooth can provide nuclear or
mitochondrial DNA that to help identify a
person.
HISTORY OF FORENSIC ODONTOLOGY

 66AD – First body identified using teeth

 Lollia Paulina
 Revolutionary War
 Paul Revere was the first forensic dentist in the
United States because he identified fallen
revolutionary soldiers.
 1849 – Mass deaths at Vienna Opera House
Fire
 Dental evidence is first admitted into court system in
US
 Salim witch trials-1692- first reported
incidence of bitemark identification

 Doyle v/s State-first bitemark to be reported

as an american judiciary opinion( 1954)-
Cheese thief
FRYE- DAUBERT V/S MERELL DOWS

 Techniques-tested & testable

 Peer review and publication of results-admit
evidence in court
 Standards-evaluation of scientific methods &
error rates
 Acceptance of scientific principles-general
acceptance & scientific validity
 Federal rule of evidence-702-705
TEETH BASICS
 Approximately 32 teeth in
adult mouth
 Four types of teeth:
 Molars

 Premolars

 Canine

 Incisors

 Teeth differ in:

 Size

 Shape

 Root type
 BITEMARKS
 Mac donald- a mark caused by the teeth
either alone or in combination with other
mouth parts

 Recorded, documented and described -

size, location and severity

 Attack injuries (present on the victim)

 defensive wounds ( present on the suspect)

 Severity: force – medium severity significant

-original injury was inflicted

-anatomical location bitten

- time elapsed between infliction and

presentation
CLASSIFCATION

Cameron & Sims- type of agent producing &

material exhibiting
 Agents-Human & Animal

 Materials

- skin, body tissue

- Foodstuff

- Other materials
MAC DONALDS- ETIOLOGIC
Macdonald DG. Bite Mark Recognition And Interpretation. J Forensic Sci Soc 1974;
14(3): 229

 Tooth pressure marks-tissue-direct

application of pressure by teeth. Eg-
incisal/occlusal surfaces
 Tongue pressure marks- sufficient amount of
tissue in mouth-presses against rigid areas-
lingual surface of teeth & palatal rugae
-marks left on skin- Suckling
 Tooth scrape marks- scraping of teeth across
bitten material. caused by ant teeth,
scratches & superficial abrasion
Outlines of the same set of teeth. The
different perimeter shapes depend on
how far the teeth are pressed into the
test substrate.
 Webster’s –foodstuff-
theft/robbery

 Type 1- food item fractures readily-limited

tooth penetration eg- hard chocolate

Type 2- considerable food

penetration eg- apple & other firm fruits

 Type 3- complete penetration of food item

with slide marks-eg cheese
TYPE OF INJURY
 Abrasion
 Ecchymosis
 Laceration
 Petechial hemorrhage
 Incision

 Artefactorial- proximate stab & bullet wound-

distort pattern by separation of anatomic
cleavage lines-langer’s lines
IDENTIFYING INJURY AS A BITE MARK
 Gross features:
-circular/elliptical mark-upper & lower arch
-central area ecchymosis- sucking action-
distinct
 Class features: differentiate b/n tooth type
-incisors-rectangular
-canines-triangular
-premolars + molars – spherical/point shaped
- Depends on attrition
 Bicuspid-figure of eight
 Greatest dimension of adult arch-4 cm

 Single arch-crescent shaped

 Class II malocclusion-palatal surface of ant

teeth-shield like pattern
 TMD midline shift, inability to open mouth-
muscle force, bite pattern, tongue thrusting
 Individual features:
fractures/rotations/spacing

 Site of bitemark: Pretty & Sweet

-females-sexual assualt-breast & legs
-males- fights- arms & shoulders
 DIFF B/N HUMAN & CARNIVORE BITE
Features Human Carnivore
Arch size & shape Broad, u-shaped, Narrow ant aspect,
circular V-
shaped/elongated
Teeth Broad central, Narrow central,
narrow lateral, broad lateral, long
blunt & sharp canines
Injury pattern Bruising, Severe laceration,
laceration avulsion, greater
skin damage
Site Breast, abdomen, Extremities,
back, shoulder exposed skin
COLLECTION OF BITEMARKS

Photography(bite victim)
 With and without the ABFO No. 2 scale

 In colour and black and white

 On and off camera flash (oblique flashes -the

three-dimensional nature
 An overall body shot showing the location of
the injury
 Close-ups that can easily be scaled 1:1
 UV photography if the injury is fading

 If the bite is on a moveable location-several

body shots-effect of movement
 Camera at 90° (perpendicular) to the injury

 Regular 24 hour intervals on both the

deceased and living victim
COLLECTION OF ITEMS

 Dental impression of the victim − self-biting

/bite injuries of suspect
 DNA swabbing of the injury site –double
swab – the first moistened with distilled water
and the second dry
 Impression of the bite injury –significant
degree of three-dimensional detail is present
 Skin removal –permits trans-illumination of
bitemark, Flawed- skin contraction
 COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE FROM THE BITE
SUSPECT

 Overall facial shot

 Close-up photograph of the teeth in normal

occlusion and biting edge to edge

 Photograph of the individual opening as

wide as possible
 Lateral view

-dental charting
- condition of each teeth
 High quality impressions - upper + lower
arches

 Prosthesis-with & without

 poly-vinyl siloxane (PVS) impression

material+ plastic stock trays-multiple times

 Alginate-pour-1−2 hours- contraction

 sheet of softened wax-occlusal record

 WAX BITE

Impression materials & trays

Cast with & without prosthesis
Visual index of
the bitemark
severity and
significance
scale
 ANALYSIS OF BITEMARK INJURIES
 Accidental or non-accidental
 American board of forensic
odontology(ABFO)

 Exclusion – the injury is not a bitemark.

 Possible bitemark – injury showing a pattern

that may or may not be caused by teeth,
could be caused by other factors but biting
cannot be ruled out.
 Probable bitemark – the pattern strongly
suggests or supports origin from teeth but
could conceivably be caused by something
else.

 Definite bitemark – there is no reasonable

doubt that teeth created the pattern.
CONCLUSIONS –BITE MARK ANALYSIS

 Definite biter: medical certainity + bitemark

dimension/pattern similar to suspect teeth
 Probable biter: degree of specificity with suspect
teeth-> matching points
 Possible biter: consistency- non specific match
 Not the biter: not at all consistent
 Exclusion: not a bitemark
PATTERN ANALYSIS IN BITEMARK EVIDENCE

 Biometric analysis

 Transparent overlay-dental casts of

suspects-biting edges- reproduced on
transparent sheets

 Overlays placed over the scaled 1:1

photographs of the bite injuries & compared
SAMPLE ANALYSIS
Bitemark : Upper Jaw Distance Suspect; Upper Jaw Distance
Cuspid to cuspid Cuspid to cuspid
38mm 42mm

Bitemark: Distance Suspect: : Distance

Tooth 6 to Tooth 10 Tooth 6 to Tooth 10
44.25mm 39.65mm
Angle: + 14.5 Degrees Angle: + 12.52 Degrees
METHODS OF OVERLAY PRODUCTION
 Computer-based
 radiographic

 Xerographic

 Hand-traced(acetate sheets and marker pen)

3-D ANALYSIS

 Have been developed to overcome some of

these problems
 Theoretically :

 Correct for distortion

 Generate the overlay objectively

 Carry out the comparison objectively

 Reproduce the overlay

 bite mark image generated
A typical digitized dental model
by the dental casts.
imported
into Rapidform editing software

Digitized 3D dental model with

intersecting
plane and captured tooth contour.
A. Van Der Velden. Bite Mark Analysis And Comparison Using Image
Perception Technology J Forensic Odontostomatol 2006;24:14-7

 New method of analysing bite marks- Image

Perception Technology

 Artificially colour areas with equal intensity

values

 2-D image as a pseudo-3-d surface object.

Original photograph
Image artificially coloured with image
perception technology software

Corresponding incisal detail in bite

Pseudo 3-D image- mark
visible bite mark detail
BITEMARKS AND DNA

 Wet swab rehydrates the salivary

constituents, releasing more epithelial cells
from the dried deposit

 DNA typing of bacteria & its recovery / SEM

analysis of bite wounds
 Presence of nucleic acid-degrading enzymes
(nucleases) saliva can rapidly degrade
DNA, (living victim) skin temperature
accelerate
 Sweet’s double swab technique-rather than
just relying upon pure ‘salivary’ DNA
Pretty IA, Sweet D. Anatomical location of bitemarks and associated findings in
101 cases from the United States. J Forensic Sci 2000; 45(4): 812−814
 Genotypic identification of oral streptococci
 one year later and found that their
genotypes-same
a. Kit- including two swabs (for skin
only, buccal suspect swabs require
only one), gloves, card drying
rack, evidence stickers, sealable
plastic bag, documentation and
evidence
envelope
b. dried prior to placement in sealed
evidence bag. Drying is a crucial
stage and can take up to 30
TECHNIQUES

 DNA typing

 DNA probe

 RFLP analysis (restriction fragment length

polymorphism)

 FISH- Fluorescence in situ hybribization

 BITES ON PERISHABLE ITEMS, NONHUMAN
SUBSTRATES

 Apples, cannabis resin, sandwiches, bank

books, pencils,pacifiers, Styrofoam
cups, envelopes

Negative impressions of the bite markPositive impressions of the bite mark

taken from the apple taken with plaster from the negative
LIMITATIONS
Reliable scientific tool or not
1. Numerous methods of fabrication
2. Relies on manual fabrication
3. Subjective element in fabrication
4. Subjective element in comparison
5. Distortion
6. Loss of data, contamination
 CONCLUSION

 Case no., date of examination, name of

examiner
 Orientation & location of mark

 Type of injury

 Colour, size, shape

 Contour, texture, elasticity of bite

 Diff b/n upper & lower arch/ individual teeth

 REFERENCES

 Shafer’s –textbook of oral pathology

 Lessig R*, Wenzel V, Weber M. Bite mark
analysis in forensic routine case work .
EXCLI Journal 2006;5:93
 Iain A Pretty. Forensic dentistry &
bitemarks. Dental update 2008.