Acta Scientific Dental Sciences (ASDS)(ISSN: 2581-4893)

Review Article Volume 7 Issue 10

Controversies and Challenges in Bite Mark Analysis: A Comprehensive Review

Dr Anjali Sehrawat*

Forensic investigator, Sherlock Institute of Forensic Science, India

*Corresponding Author: Dr Anjali Sehrawat, Forensic investigator, Sherlock Institute of Forensic Science, India.

Received: August 24, 2023; Published: September 16, 2023

Abstract

In forensic investigations, bite mark analysis has long been used as a useful tool to identify offenders and correlate crime scenes. But in recent years, this practice has come under more criticism and debate. The problems and limitations of bite mark analysis are critically examined in this review article, including issues with subjective interpretation, potential sources of mistakes, and ongoing research projects aimed at enhancing its validity and reliability. This article seeks to provide a full overview of the strengths, flaws, and urgent need for developments in this subject by critically assessing the current level of bite mark analysis. This review article strives to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of bite mark analysis in forensic investigations by conducting a holistic study to support its continued development and improvement.

Keywords: Bite Mark Analysis; Forensic Odontology; Controversies; Challenges; Limitations; Subjective Interpretation; Sources of Error; Reliability, Validity; Ongoing Research; Advancements; Forensic Investigations; Perpetrator Identification; Crime Scene Linkage

References

  1. Pretty IA., et al. “The scientific basis for forensic odontology: A Canadian perspective on the controversy surrounding bite mark analysis”. Journal of the Canadian Dental Association 79 (2013): d129.
  2. Bowers CM. “Forensic dental evidence: An investigator's handbook”. Academic Press (2006).
  3. Bush MA and Bush PJ. “The validity of bite mark analysis as evidence in criminal investigations: A critical review of the literature”. Journal of Forensic Odonto-Stomatology1 (2009): 2-12.
  4. Senn DR and Bowers CM. “The accuracy of bite mark measurements: A statistical analysis”. Journal of Forensic Sciences6 (2011): 1416-1420.
  5. National Academy of Sciences. “Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward”. National Academies Press.
  6. Kieser JA., et al. “Accuracy of bite mark analysis: a comparison of traditional methods and a new computer-based method”. Journal of Forensic Sciences 4 (2002): 859-864.
  7. Senn DR and Stimson PG. “Bite mark analysis in forensic dentistry: a review of legal, scientific issues”. The Journal of the American Dental Association 2 (1995):223-232.
  8. Pretty IA and Sweet D. “A look at forensic dentistry-Part 1: The role of teeth in the determination of human identity”. British Dental Journal 7 (2001): 359-366.
  9. American Board of Forensic Odontology. ABFO guidelines for bite mark analysis”. The Journal of Forensic Odonto-Stomatology 1 (2000): 10-12.
  10. Roberts A and Spencer J. “Bite mark analysis-past, present, and future”. Dental Update7 (2015):617-620.
  11. National Institute of Justice. (n.d.). Bite mark analysis: Study and research needs.
  12. Bowers CM., et al. “Bite mark analysis: A problematic discipline”. Journal of Forensic Sciences3 (2018): 676-682.
  13. Sweet D and Hildebrand D. “Bitemarks and bitemarkers: What can we say?” Journal of the Canadian Dental Association6 (2000): 310-314.
  14. Whittaker DK., et al. “Bite marks on the body-use and limitations of forensic dentistry”. Dental Update6 (1996): 248-252.
  15. Freeman, S and Saks MJ. “Bitemark identification: Strengths and limitations”. Forensic Science Policy and Management: An International Journal3-4 (2011): 128-136.
  16. Saks MJ and Albright TD. “The bite mark controversy: Where we are and where we are going”. Journal of Law and Policy1 (2002): 43-54.
  17. American Board of Forensic Odontology. Guidelines and standards for bitemark analysis”. The Journal of Forensic Odonto-Stomatology 2 (2019): 25-32.
  18. Swann A and Pretty IA. “The utility and limitations of bite mark analysis in the forensic dental setting”. The Journal of Forensic Odonto-Stomatology 2 (2010): 41-46.
  19. Jentzen JM., et al. “The admissibility of forensic odontology in U.S. courts: A study of Frye and Daubert challenges”. Journal of Forensic Sciences4 (2009): 909-912.
  20. Bowers CM and Johansen RJ. “Legal considerations in forensic odontology. In D. R. Senn and R. M. B. Gould (Eds.), Forensic dentistry (2nd, pp. 209-236). CRC Press (2004).
  21. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009).
  22. Giannelli PC and Imwinkelried EJ. “Scientific evidence (4th ). Thomson Reuters (2011).
  23. Pretty IA., et al. “A look at forensic dentistry--Part 2: Teeth as weapons of violence--identification of bitemark perpetrators”. British Dental Journal8 (2001): 415-418.
  24. Pretty IA., et al. “Use of three-dimensional digital imaging for bitemark analysis in forensic odontology”. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences4 (2013): 387-395.
  25. Whittaker DK. “The of forensic odontology”. Australian Dental Journal2 (2005): 108-114.
  26. Radley NJ., et al. “Bite mark analysis in Australia: history, current status, and future directions”. The Journal of Forensic Odonto-Stomatology 1 (2010): 1-6.
  27. National Institute of Justice. Forensic dentistry, bite marks, and other dental findings (2023).
  28. Pretty IA and Sweet D. “Forensic dentistry: 1. Identification of human remains”. Dental Update7 (2001): 380-386.
  29. Nuzzolese E., et al. “The role of forensic dentistry in human identification and body identification”. Open Dentistry Journal 11 (2017): 264-271.
  30. Kaur R., et al. “The role of bite mark analysis in forensic odontology”. Journal of Advanced Clinical and Research Insights1 (2015): 13-19.
  31. Miletić S and Brajković D. “Bite mark analysis and comparison: A review of the literature and presentation of cases”. Journal of Forensic Dental Sciences3 (2016): 164-172.
  32. Kouble RF., et al. “A review of the literature on forensic dental age estimation in American children”. Journal of Forensic Sciences4 (2002): 964-972.
  33. Bush MA and Bush PJ. “Dental morphology as an indicator of race”. Journal of the California Dental Association 8 (2001): 596-600.

Citation

Citation: Dr Anjali Sehrawat. “Controversies and Challenges in Bite Mark Analysis: A Comprehensive Review".Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 7.10 (2023): 64-70.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2023 Dr Anjali Sehrawat. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.




Metrics

Acceptance rate30%
Acceptance to publication20-30 days
Impact Factor1.278

Indexed In





News and Events


Contact US