Forensic Odontology: Original Article

Human Bite Marks – A Computer‑based Analysis Using Adobe

Photoshop
Lalitha Chintala, Marthala Manjula1, Stuti Goyal2, Vinil Chaitanya, Md. K. A. Hussain3, Y. C. Chaitanya
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Malla Reddy Institute of Dental Sciences, Hyderabad, Telangana, 1Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology,
Government Dental College, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, 2Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Srinivasa Institute of Dental Sciences, Mangaluru, Karnataka,
3
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, B.R. Ambedkar Dental College, Patna, Bihar, India

Abstract
Aim: Identification of human bite marks on victims and to analyze them by computer‑based superimposition technique using Adobe Photoshop
software. Materials and Methods: Five bite mark cases were selected for this study. Five bite marks were identified on patients attending the
hospital and were analyzed with computer‑based superimposition technique using Adobe Photoshop software by two observers. Results: All
the five bite marks on victims were analyzed by computer‑based superimposition technique using Adobe Photoshop software and categorized
as “not excluded as having made the bite mark with suspects dentition.” Conclusion: Computer‑based superimposition technique using Adobe
Photoshop software is an accurate and cost‑effective method for bite mark analysis.

Keywords: Adobe Photoshop, human bite marks, overlay

Introduction Human dentition is unique because no two individuals have

“Forensic odontology,” has been defined by Federation
Dentaire International as “that branch of dentistry which,
in the interest of justice, deals with the proper handling and
examination of dental evidence, and with the proper evaluation
and presentation of dental evidence.”[1] The most complex and
controversial challenge in forensic dentistry is the recognition,
recovery, and analysis of bite marks. Bite marks can be found
on tissues, food, and intimate materials. They can be of human
or animal origin. Human bite marks may be associated with
assault, homicide, child abuse, and or sexual assaults. Females
are most often bitten on the breasts, arms, and legs during
sexual attacks, whereas bites on males are commonly seen on
the arms and shoulders. In defensive circumstances, as when
the arms are held up to ward off an attacker, the arms and
hands are often bitten.
When bite marks are involved in homosexual homicides, they
tend to be on the back, arms, shoulders, face, and scrotum
of the victim. Breast and thigh marks indicate heterosexual
aggression and tend to be done slowly and sadistically,
which leaves an excellent impression. Battered children have
randomly placed bite marks that are generally diffuse and of
poor detail.[2]
Access this article online
Quick Response Code:
Website: For reprints contact: reprints@medknow.com
www.jiaomr.in
DOI:
10.4103/jiaomr.jiaomr_87_17
identical dentition with regard to the size, shape, and alignment.
Bite marks are now accepted as evidence in courts of law.
Life‑and‑death decisions can hinge upon the accuracy with
which such evidence is interpreted. Courts have admitted
evidence in different types of cases. No reported case has
yet been rejected as bite mark evidence. Its acceptance is
so well‑established that its validity need not to be proved in
every case.
The aim of this study was to identify and analyze human bite
marks by computer‑based superimposition technique using
Adobe Photoshop software.
Materials and Methods
Five cases were selected for this study. These cases were
selected from the patients attending Dental OP, at Government
Address for correspondence: Dr. Lalitha Chintala,
H. No: 11‑142, Lakshmi Residency, Flat No. 203, Sahithi Nagar,
Gaddi Annaram, Dilsukh Nagar, Hyderabad ‑ 500 060, Telangana, India.
E‑mail: lalithaomr@gmail.com
This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which
allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long
as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical
terms.
How to cite this article: Chintala L, Manjula M, Goyal S, Chaitanya V,
A. Hussain MK, Chaitanya YC. Human bite marks – A computer-based analysis
using adobe photoshop. J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol 2018;30:58-63.
Received: 21-09-2017   Accepted: 06-03-2018   Published: 23-04-2018

58 © 2018 Journal of Indian Academy of Oral Medicine & Radiology | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
 Chintala, et al.: Human bitemarks – A computer‑based analysis using Adobe Photoshop
Dental College and Hospital, Hyderabad, Casualty of Osmania
General Hospital, and autopsy bodies at Forensic Department
of Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad. Cases where bite
marks are clearly visible on the body are included in the
study. Bite marks on food stuff, other objects, and animal
bite marks were excluded from the study. Patients and bodies
were examined thoroughly. Details of the suspects were also
taken, and questioning regarding the crime was recorded.
Particulars were noted in a specially prepared proforma. Bite
mark analysis was carried out after taking permission from
concerned authorities. Bite mark analysis was done with
computer‑based superimposition technique using Adobe
Photoshop software by comparing each bite mark with five
overlays by two different observers.
Bite mark analysis was carried out in the following three steps:
1. Identification of bite mark
2. Evidence collection
3. Analysis of bite marks using Adobe Photoshop
Identification of bite mark
(a) On victim: Identification of the bite mark is a crucial step
in bite mark analysis. Many times bite marks go unnoticed
by medical, dental, and other healthcare providers as well as
criminal investigators during clinical examination or during
autopsy. Demographic information, that is, name, age, sex,
and race, were obtained in cases of both living and deceased
victims. Asking probing questions to the victim about the
behavior of perpetrator is stressful; keeping in mind that not
only physical injuries but also mental abuse and intimidation
are a part of abuse, careful history from the victim was taken.
Permission was sought to photograph suspicious injuries. Bite
mark injuries were documented.
Evidence collection
Both the victim and the suspect were examined, and evidence
from each was gathered for comparative study and evaluation.
(a) Examination of bite marks: The bite marks were visually
examined and the following details were documented according
to American Board of Forensic Odontology (ABFO) guidelines:
• Anatomical location of bite mark or object and tissue
characteristics
• Type of injury  (abrasion, laceration, ecchymosis, and
petechial hemorrhage)
• Physical appearance (color, size), orientation
• Bitten surface contour  (e.g., flat, curved, or irregular),
texture, and elasticity of the bite site
• Differences between upper and lower arches and between
individual teeth
• Identification features within a bite mark‑like rotations,
translations, or other anomalies of teeth.
(b) Photography of the bite marks: Bite marks present on
the victim were documented by photographs with the use of
scale and Sony cyber shot camera with 12.1 megapixel and 5
optical zoom. Photographs of bite marks were taken using the
following instructions:
Journal of Indian Academy of Oral Medicine & Radiology  ¦  Volume 30 ¦ Issue 1 ¦ January‑March 2018
• The presence of scale is oriented on the same plane as the
bite mark or evidence sample
• The orientation of the camera back  (film plane) to the
scale is parallel.
(c) Evidence collection from the suspect: A  standard case
history and informed consent were obtained before any
evidence recovery procedure from the suspect. An intraoral
and extraoral examination of the suspect is completed. After
detailed clinical examination, the following evidences were
collected from the suspect:
• Photographs of the suspect’s teeth
• Maxillary and mandibular impressions were made with
alginate impression material, followed by cast pouring
with dental stone.
Analysis of bite marks using Adobe Photoshop
a. Scanning the bite mark: Photograph of the bite mark was
scanned and resized to a life‑size photograph using Adobe
Photoshop software. The impressions of the subject’s
dentition were obtained, and the casts were poured. Two
coats of cold mould seal (separating media) were applied
to the casts using a thin‑haired brush. After the separating
media were dried, the casts were pressed with moderate
pressure, into stamp pad such that the plane of occlusion
was parallel to the surface of the ink pad to select the incisal
edges. Then the cast was scanned along with the ABFO
No. 2 scale placed beside it. The scanned image was then
transferred to Adobe Photoshop. The Magic wand tool
cursor was clicked on the blue colored inked incisal edges
of the teeth. The Magic wand tool selects an area of similar
pixel tone. To add to the selected area of a tooth or to select
additional teeth, the Shift key was held down while making
additional selections. Thus, keeping the Shift key pressed,
the blue colored inked incisal edges of the rest of the teeth
were also selected. In this way, all the incisal edges of the
six teeth were selected and were subsequently smoothed
b. Construction of the overlay: Since the overlay will be on
a layer separated from the Background, a new layer was
created. The selected edges were outlined by clicking
Edit > Stroke > Stroke dialog box > Stroke width > 1,
Location > Inside > OK > Ctrl + D
c. Nonmetric analysis of the bite mark and suspect’s
dentition: When the bite mark image and the overlay are
completed, a nonmetric analysis was carried out. This
analysis involves superimposing the overlay onto the
bite mark injury and investigating points of concordance
or discrepancy. A  typical bite mark comparison image
includes the bite mark image as the background layer, the
maxillary arch overlay layer, and a mandibular overlay
layer. Each of these layers can be enhanced or moved
individually.
Results
Based on the gross, class, and individual features [Table 1],[3]
overlays of teeth of the perpetrator were matched with the bite
59
 Chintala, et al.: Human bitemarks – A computer‑based analysis using Adobe Photoshop

Table 1: Gross, class, and individual features of

bitemarks
Bitemark features
Gross features Circular or elliptical pattern injury representing
maxillary and mandibular arches such as
lacerations, punctures, erythema, and avulsions
with central ecchymosis
Class features Incisors: rectangles; canines: triangles with
some variation; premolars: single or dual
triangles, diamond with some variations;
molars: rarely leave marks but when present
refer the shape of making area
individual features Rotated tooth, fracture tooth, mesiodense,
crowding, attrition, spacing , and retained
deciduous teeth
Source: Taken from American Board of Forensic Odontology, Inc.[3]
Figure 1: Bitemark present on the right arm of the victim
mark on the skin of the victims. For each bite mark, all the five
overlays were tried and interpreted by two different observers.
The first case was that of sexual assault on a 70‑year‑old
female victim. Bite marks were found on her breast, right pubic
area, and back. Bite marks on the breast and back were not
significant. Bite mark on the pubic area was quite significant.
It was roughly circular in shape and there were two teeth marks
of the upper arch and two of the lower arch, and they were
rectangular in shape. There were central and peripheral suck
marks present indicating that it was a sexual assault. There
were no teeth marks present on the left side in the upper arch
on the bite mark. On clinical examination of the suspect, many
teeth were missing 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 24, 31, 34, 36.
Numbers 22 and 25 were supra erupted. No. 25 was mesially
drifted and it was slightly rotated. Numbers 32 and 33 were
Figure 2: Suspects’ maxillary arch with spacing between 11, 12 and
also mesially drifted. Overlays of the scanned casts were
21, 22
compared with the bite mark photograph. No. 22 and rotated
25 which were supra erupted, and 32 and 41 were matched
with the bite mark.
The second case was that of domestic violence. The victim was
bitten by the suspect. Bite marks were found on the right arm of
the victim [Figure 1]. The photographs were taken 2 days after
the injury showing crust formation. At the site of bite, there
were multiple bite marks present resulting in slight overlap of
the bite marks. The bite marks were found on the curved surface
and they were roughly circular in shape. Four teeth marks of
the upper arch with rectangular shape represent incisors. Three
teeth marks were seen in the lower arch, one pointed in the
center and two were triangular in shape representing canines.
On clinical examination of the suspect’s teeth, there was full
complement of teeth present with spacing between 11, 12 and
21, 22. [Figures 2 and 3] Mesio incisal edges of 31 and 41 were Figure 3: Suspect’s mandibular arch teeth
slightly lingually rotated. Dental caries of 15 and 26 were seen.
Overlays of the scanned casts were compared with the bite
Bite mark was caused by the mandibular teeth. There were
mark photographs of 11, 12, 21, 33, 43 and mesioincisal edges
two teeth marks present which were rectangular in shape
of 31 and 41 coincided with the bite mark [Figures 4 and 5].
suggesting incisors. On clinical examination of the suspect’s
In the third case, a 2½‑year‑old female patient has bitten a teeth all the teeth were deciduous. Overlays of the scanned
BDS student while taking an IOPA radiograph. Bite mark casts were compared with the bite mark photographs; 31 and
was present on the palmar surface of left‑hand index finger. 32 coincided with the bite mark.

60 Journal of Indian Academy of Oral Medicine & Radiology  ¦  Volume 30  ¦  Issue 1  ¦  January‑March 2018
 Chintala, et al.: Human bitemarks – A computer‑based analysis using Adobe Photoshop

In the fourth case, the victim has bitten himself on his forearm
in anger. Bite mark was roughly circular in shape. Four teeth
marks in the upper arch which were rectangular in shape
represent incisors. Five teeth marks of the lower arch were
present, in that four were rectangular indicting incisors and
one was triangular indicating canine. On clinical examination
of the victim’s teeth, full complement of the teeth was present.
Lower arch crowding was seen. Overlays of the scanned casts
were compared with bite mark photograph; 11, 12, 21, 22 and
31, 32, 41, 42, 43 coincided with the bite mark.
In the fifth case, the perpetrator has bitten the victim in anger
during a fight. Photographs were taken after 1 day. As the post
mortem changes have already started, the body was swollen
making bite mark analysis difficult. Bite marks were found on
the abdomen region. The mark was oval in shape and the teeth
Figure 4: Overlays prepared with scanned casts of suspect
marks resembled ecchymotic marks. Teeth marks were slightly
dragged; six teeth marks of the upper arch and six teeth marks
of the lower arch were seen. On clinical examination of the
suspect, all teeth up to second molars were present. No. 12 was
placed slightly labially. Mandibular anterior teeth crowding
was seen. Overlays of the scanned casts were compared with
the bite mark photographs; 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23 and 31, 32,
33, 41, 42, 43 coincided with the bite mark.
All the cases were examined by two observers separately by
comparing all five bite mark overlays and it was analyzed
by computer‑based superimposition technique using Adobe
Photoshop. According to ABFO bite mark methodology
standards and guidelines,[4] all the five cases were categorized
under “not excluded as having made the bite mark” [Figure 6].

Discussion
Figure 5: Overlays of scanned casts matched with bitemarks
It has long been recognized that bite marks are unique[5,6] and
can be attributed to specific individuals. A study in 1991 has
established dental uniqueness beyond a reasonable doubt. Even
the dentition of identical twins is not identical. It has been
estimated that in about 2.5 billion people, there may be two
persons who produce identical bite marks. This means that in
India, with a population of 1 billion, no two persons will have
identical bite marks.[7]
Mac Donald defined bite mark as “a representative pattern
left in an object or tissue by the dental structures, either
alone or in combination with other oral structures of an
animal or human.”[8] Bite marks may be caused by humans
or animals. They may be on tissue, food items, or other
objects. Many forensic odontologists classified bite marks
according to Cameron and Sims classification, Mac Donald’s
classification,[9] and Webster’s classification.[10]
Figure 6: Terms used to relate a questioned dentition to a bitemark
The terms commonly used in bite mark analysis are as
follows:[11]
involved, tend to have them on the back, arms, shoulders, face,
1. Victim –the recipient of the bite mark
and scrotum of the victim. Breast and thigh marks indicate
2. Perpetrator – the person who caused the bite mark
heterosexual aggression and tend to be done slowly and
Vernon Gaberth[12] in practical homicide investigation points sadistically, which leaves an excellent impression. Battered
out that homosexual homicides, when they have bite marks children have randomly placed bite marks that are generally

Journal of Indian Academy of Oral Medicine & Radiology  ¦  Volume 30 ¦ Issue 1 ¦ January‑March 2018 61
 Chintala, et al.: Human bitemarks – A computer‑based analysis using Adobe Photoshop
diffuse and of poor detail. Human bite marks are most often
found on the skin of the victims and they may be found on
almost all parts of the human body. Female are most often
bitten on the breasts, arms, and legs during sexual attacks
(e.g., first case), whereas bites on males are commonly seen on
the arms and shoulders (e.g., fifth case; third case). In defensive
circumstances, as when the arms are held up to ward off an
attacker, the arms and hands are often bitten.
Wood et al.[13] in their study of a bite mark analysis of a
sexual assault case have used radiographic, xeroradiographic,
and computer‑based technique. They stated that among the
three methods, radiographic and xeroradiographic methods
lack accurate details. They were able to match accurately
with computer‑based method. This study was done on five
cases, and all the cases were matched which shows that the
computer‑based method is more accurate when compared to
other methods.
Whittaker DK[14] conducted a study on 84 bite mark cases.
Bite marks were voluntarily created on wax and pig skin.
Comparison was done based on a visual method depending
on arch curvature, width of teeth, angulations of teeth, and
spacings between teeth. Only 68% cases were matched, and
they stated that visual matching using subjective criteria is
less accurate. This study uses computer‑based method which
is more objective in nature and the results were statistically
significant (96%). National survey of the incidence of missing
anterior teeth conducted by Lopez et al.[15] stated that missing
teeth act as a potential useful tool in the bite mark analysis.
Similarly, in this study in one case (e.g., first case), the suspect
had missing teeth which helped in bite mark analysis.
According to Rawson et al.,[16] a curved body surface which
allows visualization of the entire bite mark has a small amount
of photographic distortion similar to one case (second case)
though the bite mark was found on the curved surface, that is,
on the right arm, suspects teeth were matched with the bite
mark. This is because the visualization of entire bite mark
has a surface angle that was too small to produce significant
photographic distortion.
Sweet et al. described computer‑based method and they used
[17]
this method on a number of cases involving human bites on
skin and they stated this to be an accurate method. In this, five
cases of bite marks on skin were compared with the suspects’
teeth; using this method among them five cases were matched.
The results indicate that the computer‑based method is an
accurate method and also indicates that human teeth and bite
marks they create are indeed unique.
Previously, many authors tried to fabricate overlays of
suspect’s teeth by various methods such as photographic, wax
imprint, radiographic, and xeroradiographic. The disadvantage
of these methods was that they are more subjective in
nature. This study uses computer‑based method which is
more objective when compared to the other methods. The
computer‑based method uses Adobe Photoshop software in
62 Journal of Indian Academy of Oral Medicine & Radiology  ¦  Volume 30  ¦  Issue 1  ¦  January‑March 2018
which various tools digitally select the incisal edges of the
teeth and fabricate overlays.
These overlays can be easily compared with the life‑size
image of the bite mark. Another advantage of this method is
the reproducibility. This method reduces examiner variability
and also reduces human errors. This study was carried out
based on a nonmetric method, but in future metric analysis
and 3D bite mark analyses[4] may be used to be more precise.
Conclusion
Bite marks are usually associated with sex crimes, violent
fights, child abuse, and thefts. If the teeth leave definitive
marks, it should be possible to individualize them to a
particular person. Hence, matching the bite mark to a suspect’s
dentition may enable law to implicate the suspect in the
crime. Bite marks on the skin, food stuff, or on any other
material can be considered as a type of physical evidence
and it has an evidentiary value in court of law. This study
was done on identification and analysis of human bite marks
by computer ‑based superimposition technique using Adobe
Photoshop software. This method is easy and cost‑effective
and gives reproducible results.
Declaration of patient consent
The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate
patient consent forms. In the form the patient(s) has/have
given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other
clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients
understand that their names and initials will not be published
and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but
anonymity cannot be guaranteed.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Mc Dowell, JD. A commentary on the current status of bitemarks. Dent
Abstr 2009;54:4‑6.
2. Rudland M. The dimensional stability of bitemarks in apples after long
term storage in a fixative. Med Sci Law 1982;22:47‑50.
3. American Board of Forensic Odontology, Inc. Diplomates Reference
Manual Section IV: Standards & Guidelines.
4. Thali, MJ, Braun  M, Markwalder ThH, Brueschweiler  W, Malik  NJ,
Yen  K, et al. Bite mark documentation and analysis: The forensic
3D/CAD supported photogrammetry approach. For Sci Int
2003;135: 115‑21.
5. Rai  B, Anand  S, Madan  M, Dhattarwal  S. Bite marks: A  new
identification technique. Internet J Forensic Sci 2006;2:1.
6. Rawson RD, Ommen RK, Kinard G, Johnson J, Fantis AY. Statistical
evidence for the individuality of the human dentition. J  Forensic Sci
1984;29:245‑53.
7. Aggrawal A. Role of science in crime detection. Crime Detect 2001;8‑9.
8. Luntz L Luntz P. Hand Book for Dental Identification. Philadelphia, PA:
Lippincott; 1973. p. 154.
9. Rao DS, Ali IM, Annigeri RG. Bitemarks – A review. J Dent Res Rev
2016;3:31‑5.
10. Vander Velden  A, Spiessens  M, Williams  G. Bitemark analysis and
 Chintala, et al.: Human bitemarks – A computer‑based analysis using Adobe Photoshop

comparison using image perception technology. J  Forensic Odont
2006;24:14‑7.
11. ABFO Inc. Guidelines for bitemark analysis. J  Am Dental Assoc
1986;112:383‑6.
12. Rudland M. The dimensional stability of bitemarks in apples after long
term storage in a fixative. Med Sci Law 1982;22:47‑50.
13. Wood  RE, Miller  PA, Blenkinsop  BR. Image editing and computer
assisted bitemark analysis: A case report. J Forensic Odont 1994;12:30‑6.
14. Whittaker  DK. Some laboratory studies on the accuracy of bitemark
comparisons. Int Dent J 1975;25:166‑71.
15. Lopez  TT, Biazevic  MG, Michel‑Crosato  E. National survey of the
incidence of missing anterior teeth‑ Potential use in bite mark analysis
in the Brazilian context. Sci Justice; 2010;50:119‑22.
16. Rawson RD, Vale GL, Sperber ND. Analysis of photographic distortion
in bitemarks: A report of the bitemark guidelines committee. J Forens
Sci 1986;31:261‑68.
17. Sweet DJ, Parhar M, Wood RE. Computer based production of bitemark
comparison overlays. J Forensic Sci 1998;43:1050‑5.

Journal of Indian Academy of Oral Medicine & Radiology  ¦  Volume 30 ¦ Issue 1 ¦ January‑March 2018 63
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.