The role of forensic dentistry in forensic science: issues and validity?

A selection of abstracts of clinically relevant papers from other journals. The abstracts on this page have been chosen and edited by John R. Radford.

Abstract

The National Academy of Sciences in the US states that bite marks have been used '...in criminal trials without any meaningful scientific validation...'.

Main

Adams C. Fac Dent J 2012; 3: 199–201

Only three studies have explored the reliability of bite mark analysis. They report false positives ranging from an unacceptable ca. 15% to a staggering 91%. This is not unexpected, as during the assault there is variable 1) tissue bruising, 2) abrasion, 3) puncturing, 4) movement between the teeth and skin, and 5) all such injuries could occur through clothing. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the dimensions and positions of anterior teeth are unique to that individual. However, bite mark analysis does have a role in establishing that teeth were the 'offensive weapon' and, when excluding or including a suspect if there is 'a confirmed small pool of possible perpetrators such as is often the case in child abuse investigations'.