Home > Journals > Minerva Medicolegale > Past Issues > Minerva Medicolegale 2005 September;125(3) > Minerva Medicolegale 2005 September;125(3):139-52

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints
Permissions

 

REVIEWS   

Minerva Medicolegale 2005 September;125(3):139-52

Copyright © 2005 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Contemporary forensic odontological practice. Part 2: Bitemarks and bite injuries

Pretty I. A.


PDF


While the practice of human identification is well established, validated and proven to be accurate, the practice of bitemark analysis is less well accepted. The principle of identifying an injury as a bitemark is complex, and, depending on severity and anatomical location, highly subjective. Following the identification of an injury as a bitemark the comparison of the pattern produced to a suspect's dentition is even more contentious and an area of great debated within contemporary odontological practice. Advanced techniques using digital overlays have been suggested yet studies have shown that these can be inaccurate and there is no agreement as to the preferred method of comparison. However, the advent of DNA and its recovery from bitemarks has offered an objective method of bitemark analysis. Despite the strengths of DNA the physical comparison of suspect's dentitions to bitemark injuries is still common place. The issues within bitemark analysis are discussed an illustrated with case examples.

top of page