BITEMARKS

Presented By: Prabhjot Kaur Maan

Class: M.Sc. Forensic Science (Semester 3rd )
Roll no. : 21151010
 Contents

 Introduction
 A Source Of Identification
 Teeth Basics
 Bitemarks
 Identification Of Bitemarks
 Classification Of Bitemarks
 Collection Of Bitemarks
 Analysis And Comparison Of Bitemarks
 Forensic Significance
 References
 Introduction

 Forensic Odontology is the application of dentistry in legal proceedings deriving from

any evidence that pertains to teeth. 
OR
 Use of dentition in the identification of individuals by comparing the unique aspects of
the victim with the pre death dental records.
 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 – 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.
 Teeth Basics

• Approximately there are 32 teeth in adult mouth.

 Four types of teeth: Classification in each jaw :

 Molars(6)
 Premolars (4)
 Canine (2)
 Incisors (4)

 Teeth differ in:

 Size
 Shape
 Root type
 Bitemarks

 Bite marks have been defined by MacDonald as –

“a mark caused by the teeth either alone or in combination with other mouth parts”.

 Bite marks may be caused by humans or animals; they may be on tissue, food items or on objects.

 Biting is considered to be primitive type of assault and results when teeth are employed as a
weapon in an act of Dominance.
 Identification Of Bitemarks

 Sweet has suggested that human bite marks maybe identified by following characteristics:

1. Gross Features : A circular or elliptical marks found on the skin with a central area of
ecchymosis. The circular mark is caused by upper and lower arches while the central area of
ecchymosis is due to sucking action.

2. Class Features : The marks produced by different classes of teeth are usually distinct, allowing
one to differentiate tooth type within a bite mark.

 Incisors produce rectangular marks, canines are triangular or rectangular depending on the amount
of attrition, premolars and molars are spherical or point shaped.
3. Individual features : Class features may in turn have characters such as fractures, rotations,
spacing etc.

4. Sites of Bite marks :

• Bite marks may be found on any part of the body.
• Females are most often bitten on breast and inner part of thighs as a result of sexual assault.
• Male children are prone to be bitten on genitals, result of sexual abuse.
• Adult males are bitten on fingers, arms and shoulders, most often during fights.
 Classification Of Bitemarks

 MacDonald has stated that as –

Any field of specialization gets established, it requires the development of specific nomenclature and
systems of classification.

 Cameron and Sims classification:

It is a relatively simple wide encompassing classification which is based on the type of agent
producing the bite marks and the material exhibiting it.
 Agents : Human ,Animals

 Materials: Skin, Body tissue, Food stuffs and other materials.

 MacDonalds Classification:
The most sited, MacDonlad suggested an etiological classification. This is pertinent for human bites but also
applicable to marks on other material.

• Marks produced on tissue as a result of direct application of

Tooth Pressure Marks pressure by teeth. These are generally produced by the incisal and
occlusal surface of teeth.

• When sufficient amount of tissue is taken into mouth, the tongue

Tongue Pressure Marks presses against rigid areas such as lingual surface of teeth and
palatal rugae. The marks thus left are reffered to as sucklings 

• These are the marks caused due to scraping of teeth across the
Tooth Scrape Marks bitten materials.They are usually caused by the ‘Anterior teeth’ and
presents as scratches or superficial abrasions.
 Webster’s Classification :
It is not uncommon to note bite on food stuff. This is especially in case of theft or robbery at house or
shopping centers.

Type I. The food item fractures readily with limited depth of tooth penetration (e.g.
hard chocolate)

Type II. Fracture of fragment of food item with considerable penetration of teeth
(e.g. bite marks in apple and other firm fruits).

Type III. Complete or near complete penetration of the food item with slide marks
(e.g. cheese, banana).
Difference Between Human And Carnivorous Bite

Features Human Carnivore

1. Arch size and shape Broad , u-shaped , circular Narrow, v –shaped , ant shaped

2. Teeth Broad central, narrow lateral, Narrow central , broad lateral ,

blunt canines long and sharp canines

3. Injury pattern Brusing , laceration Severe laceration, avulsion,

greater skin damage

4. Site Breast, abdomen, back, Extremities , exposed skin

shoulder
 Collection Of Bitemarks :

1. Evidence Collection From Victim:

 Ideally, bite mark evidence should be collected when it is first presented and observed.

 When a case with suspected bite mark is identified, a primary concern is patient care .

 The protocol for bite mark evidence collection that follows has been recommended by the American
board of forensic odontology (ABFO) .
 Case Demographics :
Vital information pertaining to the case should first be noted. Like Name, Age and Sex of the victim as
well as case number , date of examination and name of examination .

 Visual Examination :
Visually examining the bite mark and document the following :
 Orientation and location of the mark
 Type of injury
 Colour, size and shape
 Contour, Texture and elasticity of the bite site
 Differences between upper and lower arches and between individual teeth
 Photography:
Photographs provide a permanent records of bite marks. No time should be wasted to collect pictures.
Desirably two views are preferred.
 Orientation photography: Photographs that depict the location of bite mark on body.
 Close up photography: These should be made with a rigid reference scale (such as ABFO NO 2 scale) that
is placed on the same place as the bite marks.
 Saliva Swabs:
It is reasonable to assume that a bite cannot be inflicted without leaving saliva behind. Saliva deposited on
skin may have WBCs and sloughed epithelial cells which may be a source of DNA , enabling direct link to the
suspect . Hence swabbing the bite areas for saliva traces can prove valuable in investigations. Care should be
taken to not wash the bitten area before swabbing.

 Impressions Of Bite Marks:

Impressions of bite site should be taken when indicated according to ABFO bite mark analysis guidelines .
Dental acrylic or plaster can be used as a rigid support for the impression to accurately record the curvature of
the skin. Use vinyl poly siloxane poly ether or other impression material are also used.
2. Evidence Collection From Suspect:
Evidence collected from the victim of a bite mark should be complimented with evidence from a suspect of
the perpetrated bite. Such evidence must be obtained from the suspect using a signed and witnessed inform
consent or a court order.
Following a detailed clinical examination , the items of evidence recovered should include:
 Photographs of suspects teeth in occlusion and open bite.
 Maxillary and mandibular impressions made with rubber base impression material or irreversible
hydrocolloid and models poured in dental stone
 Saliva swabs preferably from the buccal vestibule should be obtained for comparing with the swab
collected from the bite mark.
 Analysis Of Bitemark Injuries :

Accidental or non-accidental
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.
 Analysis And Comparison Of Bitemark:

• In addition to the jaw movement we also have to consider the flexibility of the bitten
tissue.
• Recognize all the characteristics such as presence or absence of particular tooth , its
dimensions, rotation, fraction, and other unusual features of teeth.
• Measurement can be obtained from caliper or computer software.
• Measurements obtained from bite marks are compared to that of suspect’s dental model .
• Ciapparelli and Hughes have pointed ‘direct method’ of comparison where the suspect’s
dental models are placed directly over the bite mark photograph .
• Nowadays, 3D scans of dental casts are available for bite mark Analysis and
comparison.
 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
Upper Jaw Distance Upper Jaw Distance
Cuspid To Cuspid Cuspid To Cuspid
38mm 42mm

Distance Distance
Tooth 6 To Tooth 10 Tooth 6 To Tooth 10
44.25 mm 39.65 mm
Angle : + 14.5 Degrees Angle : +12.52 Degrees

VICTIM SUSPECT
 Methods Of Overlay Production:

 Computer-based

 Radiographic

 Xerographic

 Hand-traced(acetate Sheets And Marker Pen)

 Forensic Significance

 By establishing the uniqueness of the biter’s teeth and then applying those unique
properties to the bite pattern, a degree of confidence relating the biter’s teeth to the
injury pattern is described.
 This opinion can range for excluded ( the suspect did not do the biting) to likely and
without a doubt (the bite was witnessed and there is not question the suspected biter
inflicted the bite).
 Despite the unique nature of the position and arrangement of the human teeth, it is
usually easier to rule out a suspect as a potential biter than it is to include a suspect
as a potential biter.
 Case study

Theodore Robert Bundy in the U.S. on November 24, 1946 was a famous serial killer. He harassed and
murdered many young girls in the U.S . He was so cunning that no piece of physical evidence is left at the
crime scene to disclose his identity to law enforcement agencies. This case becomes serious matter of
concern for the country. Apart from sexual killings, he was also included in small thefts. He tried to escape
from police several times. His numbering of killing was about 30 to 36. The exact figure is not fixed.
Fortunately, he did a mistake in one of his punishable offences. On January 15, 1978 Ted Bundy raped and
murdered two women Lisa Levy and Martha Bowman. The murder of the two was brutal. He left an odd
bitemark on left buttock of Lisa Levy become centerpiece evidence of this case. Possibly the tissue of the
skin of the buttock must have been destroyed at the time of trial but photographs were maintained. Ted
Bundy impressions were compared with the evidence that was recovered from the victim and they matched
perfectly which lead to his conviction. He was sentenced to death on an electric chair. This was the first case
in Florida where the conviction was relied upon bitemark testimony.
 References

 Rajendran, R. (2009). Shafer's textbook of oral pathology. Elsevier India.

 James, S. H., & Nordby, J. J. (2002). Forensic science: an introduction to scientific and
investigative techniques. CRC press.
 Rawson, R. D., Vale, G. L., Sperber, N. D., Herschaft, E. E., & Yfantis, A. (1986).
Reliability of the scoring system of the American Board of Forensic Odontology for
human bite marks. Journal of Forensic Science, 31(4), 1235-1260.
 Lessig, R. (2006). Bite mark analysis in forensic routine case work.