Assessment and classification of the forensic significance of human bite marks in skin
Main Article Content
Abstract
The forensic significance of a bite mark is a relevant factor in the analysis of human bite marks in skin and comparison with teeth. The interpretation of the causal dentition’s class and individual characteristics forms the basis for assessing a bite mark’s forensic significance. The paucity of scientific research in the assessment of forensic significance is an important limiting factor in bite mark analysis and in justifying the comparison of a bite mark with teeth. An evidence-based rationale for assessing and classifying the forensic significance of human bite marks in skin is examined and a limited empirical classification is proposed.
Keywords:
Bite mark analysis and comparison, Forensic significance, Classification
Article Details
How to Cite
SHEASBY, Douglas R.
Assessment and classification of the forensic significance of human bite marks in skin.
Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 13, n. 11, nov. 2025.
ISSN 2375-1924.
Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/7035>. Date accessed: 05 dec. 2025.
doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v13i11.7035.
Section
Review Articles
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
1 Sheasby DR. An evidence-based methodology for the analysis and comparison of human bite marks in skin with teeth. Medical Research Archives, 13 (1), 1-15. 2025.
2 Sheasby DR. The challenges to the forensic analysis of human bite marks in skin and comparison with teeth. Medical Research Archives, 11 (7.2), 1-13. 2023.
3 Pretty IA, Sweet D. A paradigm shift in the analysis of bitemarks. Forensic Science International, 201, 38-44. 2010.
4 van der Linden FPGM. Development of the Human Dentition. Quintessence Publishing Company Ltd., London. 2016.
5 Bush MA, Bush PJ, Sheets HD. A study of multiple bitemarks inflicted in human skin by a single dentition using geometric morphometric analysis. Forensic Science International, 211, 1-8. 2011.
6 Holtkotter H, Sheets HD, Bush PJ, Bush MA. Effect of systematic dental shape modification in bitemarks. Forensic Science International, 228, 61-69. 2013.
7 Ström F. Investigation of bite-marks. Journal of Dental Research, 42, 312-316. 1963.
8 Keiser-Nielsen S. Forensic odontology – a survey. Presented at the FDI/ERO meeting, Vienna. 1968.
9 Nordby JJ. Can we believe what we see, if we see what we believe? – expert disagreement. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 37, 1115-1124. 1992.
10 Dror IE. Cognitive and human factors in expert decision making: six fallacies and the eight sources of bias. Analytical Chemistry, 92, 7998-8004. 2020.
11 Kassin SM, Dror IE, Kukucka J. The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 42-52. 2013.
12 Forensic Science Regulator. Guidance: Cognitive bias effects relevant to forensic science examinations. FSR-G-217, Issue 2. 2020.
13 Clement JG, Blackwell SA. Is current bite mark analysis a misnomer? Forensic Science International, 201, 33-37. 2010.
14 Whittaker DK, MacDonald DG. A Colour Atlas of Forensic Dentistry: Bite marks in flesh. Wolfe Medical Publications Ltd., London. 1989.
15 Sheasby DR, MacDonald DG. A forensic classification of distortion in human bite marks. Forensic Science International, 122, 75-78. 2001.
16 Sheasby DR. Forensic Dentistry – Bite Mark Distortion. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. 1998.
17 Bush MA, Miller RG, Bush PJ, Dorion RBJ. Biomechanical factors in human dermal bitemarks in a cadaver model. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54, 167-176. 2009.
18 Whittaker DK. Some laboratory studies on the accuracy of bite mark comparison. International Dental Journal, 25, 166-171. 1975.
19 Pretty IA, Sweet D. The scientific basis for human bitemark analyses – a critical review. Science and Justice, 41, 85-92. 2001.
20 American Board of Forensic Odontology, Inc. Guidelines for bite mark analysis. Journal of the American Dental Association, 112, 383-386. 1986.
21 Rawson RD, Vale GL, Sperber ND, Herschaft EE, Yfantis A. Reliability of the scoring system of the American Board of Forensic Odontology for human bite marks. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 31, 1235-1260. 1986.
22 Ligthelm AJ, de Wet FA. Recognition of bite marks: a preliminary report. Journal of Forensic Odontostomatology, 1, 19-26. 1983.
23 Pretty IA. Development and validation of a human bitemark severity and significance scale. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 52, 687-691. 2007.
24 Avon SL, Victor C, Mayhall JT, Wood RE. Error rates in bite mark analysis in an in vivo animal model. Forensic Science International, 201, 45-55. 2010.
25 Bowers CM, Pretty IA. Expert disagreement in bitemark casework. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54, 915-918. 2009.
26 Aitken C, MacDonald DG. An application of discrete kernel methods to forensic odontology. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 28, 55-61. 1979.
27 Miller RG, Bush PJ, Dorion RBJ, Bush MA. Uniqueness of the dentition as impressed in human skin: a cadaver model. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54, 909-914. 2009.
2 Sheasby DR. The challenges to the forensic analysis of human bite marks in skin and comparison with teeth. Medical Research Archives, 11 (7.2), 1-13. 2023.
3 Pretty IA, Sweet D. A paradigm shift in the analysis of bitemarks. Forensic Science International, 201, 38-44. 2010.
4 van der Linden FPGM. Development of the Human Dentition. Quintessence Publishing Company Ltd., London. 2016.
5 Bush MA, Bush PJ, Sheets HD. A study of multiple bitemarks inflicted in human skin by a single dentition using geometric morphometric analysis. Forensic Science International, 211, 1-8. 2011.
6 Holtkotter H, Sheets HD, Bush PJ, Bush MA. Effect of systematic dental shape modification in bitemarks. Forensic Science International, 228, 61-69. 2013.
7 Ström F. Investigation of bite-marks. Journal of Dental Research, 42, 312-316. 1963.
8 Keiser-Nielsen S. Forensic odontology – a survey. Presented at the FDI/ERO meeting, Vienna. 1968.
9 Nordby JJ. Can we believe what we see, if we see what we believe? – expert disagreement. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 37, 1115-1124. 1992.
10 Dror IE. Cognitive and human factors in expert decision making: six fallacies and the eight sources of bias. Analytical Chemistry, 92, 7998-8004. 2020.
11 Kassin SM, Dror IE, Kukucka J. The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 42-52. 2013.
12 Forensic Science Regulator. Guidance: Cognitive bias effects relevant to forensic science examinations. FSR-G-217, Issue 2. 2020.
13 Clement JG, Blackwell SA. Is current bite mark analysis a misnomer? Forensic Science International, 201, 33-37. 2010.
14 Whittaker DK, MacDonald DG. A Colour Atlas of Forensic Dentistry: Bite marks in flesh. Wolfe Medical Publications Ltd., London. 1989.
15 Sheasby DR, MacDonald DG. A forensic classification of distortion in human bite marks. Forensic Science International, 122, 75-78. 2001.
16 Sheasby DR. Forensic Dentistry – Bite Mark Distortion. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. 1998.
17 Bush MA, Miller RG, Bush PJ, Dorion RBJ. Biomechanical factors in human dermal bitemarks in a cadaver model. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54, 167-176. 2009.
18 Whittaker DK. Some laboratory studies on the accuracy of bite mark comparison. International Dental Journal, 25, 166-171. 1975.
19 Pretty IA, Sweet D. The scientific basis for human bitemark analyses – a critical review. Science and Justice, 41, 85-92. 2001.
20 American Board of Forensic Odontology, Inc. Guidelines for bite mark analysis. Journal of the American Dental Association, 112, 383-386. 1986.
21 Rawson RD, Vale GL, Sperber ND, Herschaft EE, Yfantis A. Reliability of the scoring system of the American Board of Forensic Odontology for human bite marks. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 31, 1235-1260. 1986.
22 Ligthelm AJ, de Wet FA. Recognition of bite marks: a preliminary report. Journal of Forensic Odontostomatology, 1, 19-26. 1983.
23 Pretty IA. Development and validation of a human bitemark severity and significance scale. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 52, 687-691. 2007.
24 Avon SL, Victor C, Mayhall JT, Wood RE. Error rates in bite mark analysis in an in vivo animal model. Forensic Science International, 201, 45-55. 2010.
25 Bowers CM, Pretty IA. Expert disagreement in bitemark casework. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54, 915-918. 2009.
26 Aitken C, MacDonald DG. An application of discrete kernel methods to forensic odontology. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 28, 55-61. 1979.
27 Miller RG, Bush PJ, Dorion RBJ, Bush MA. Uniqueness of the dentition as impressed in human skin: a cadaver model. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54, 909-914. 2009.