351

3D imaging for bite mark analysis

S T Evans*a, C Jonesb and P Plassmannb

a
Dental Illustration Unit, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Glamorgan CF14 4XY, UK
b
The faculty of Advance Technology, University of Glamorgan

Abstract: This work describes the investigation into a new 3D capture method for acquisition
and subsequent forensic analysis of bite mark injuries on human skin. When documenting bite
marks with standard 2D cameras, errors in photographic technique can occur if best practice is
not followed. Subsequent forensic analysis of the mark is problematic when a 3D structure is
recorded in a 2D space. A 3D image capture and processing system might avoid the problems
resulting from the 2D reduction process, simplifying the guidelines and reducing errors. This
paper reviews current 2D and three 3D capture methods and proposes a series of benchmarks
for system assessment. This is followed by a series of performance evaluations of the existing
current 2D and two 3D methods. Further proposed solutions include the design of a system
specification for the practical reproducible acquisition of bite mark injuries and a review of the
validation process for forensic evidence presented to the courts. The result of this work is that a
3D system is required to produce the correct 3D data of a bite mark and suspect dentition for
forensic analysis. Such a system should be practical and consistent if it is to replace the current
de facto 2D systems. The MAVIS hardware, for example, can be considered a practical and
consistent solution for producing the required 3D image of a bite mark for analysis; however,
the MAVIS hardware cannot produce a satisfactory 3D image of a dental cast. At present, a
laser scanner is required to produce satisfactory results of a dental cast. Angular distortion and
errors created by the user in 2D image capture can hinder the digital measurement process. 3D
capture therefore introduces less operator error in the form of angular distortion.

Keywords: 3D imaging, forensic odontology, forensic imaging, bite mark analysis, pattern
analysis

1 INTRODUCTION The forensic analysis of a bite mark is based on

The forensic analysis of bite mark injuries conducted
by forensic odontologists (dentists) has recently come
under scrutiny, along with other forensic identifica-
tion sciences.1 Bite mark evidence is deemed admis-
sible in law courts throughout the world. However,
the complexities of the interaction of teeth on human
skin and the quality of the photographic evidence
often raise concerns with forensic odontologists
themselves as to the accuracy of the evidence.
The MS was accepted for publication on 17 November 2011.
* Corresponding author: S T Evans, Dental Illustration Unit,
Cardiff University, Cardiff, Glamorgan CF14 4XY, UK; email
evansst@cardiff.ac.uk
several premises: firstly, the individuality of the
suspect’s dentition within a closed population;
secondly, the accuracy in which the dentition
transfers the shape of the incisal (biting) surface of
the teeth onto the skin as a bruise (Fig. 1); and
thirdly, that the image capture (photograph) of both
the injury and the dental cast of the suspect’s teeth is
accurate. Bite mark analysis is subjected to further
variables in two types of distortion:2 primary distor-
tion, which is due to the action of the biting process
at the time of impact, and secondary distortion,
which is broken down into three categories: time-
related changes, body position and photographic
distortion. With current knowledge and technology,

IMAG 235 # RPS 2013 DOI: 10.1179/1743131X11Y.0000000054 The Imaging Science Journal Vol 61
352 S T EVANS, C JONES AND P PLASSMANN
1 Incisal surface highlighted with circle and bite mark
pattern
the only aspect of this inaccuracy that can be
controlled by the operator is photographic distortion,
specifically angular distortion. Arguably, the most
important aspect in the collection of the photo-
graphic evidence is the position of the camera when
taking the photograph. The camera’s film plane
(complementary metal oxide semiconductor or charge-
coupled device sensor) must be perpendicular to
the bite mark as any distortion may change the
appearance of the shape and dimensions of the bite
mark. This was described in Ref. 2 as: ‘The ideal
photographic angle is 90 degrees – This angle
produces parallelism between the film plane and
consequently photographic distortion is insignificant’.
The problem is compounded by the fact that when
bruises are inflicted onto a curved part of the body,3
further error is introduced by the representation of a
3D structure (human body) in a 2D space (conven-
tional digital camera). To significantly reduce this
The Imaging Science Journal Vol 61
photographic distortion and thus improve the
supportive evidence that is provided by medical
and forensic photographers, it has been proposed
that 3D image capture is more precise, accurate and
robust than any other form of recording the bite
mark injury.5–7 Proponents of 3D imaging technol-
ogy and many forensic odontologists throughout the
world have supported this idea. Sweet concludes
that:
More than half of the photos we receive get sent
back because they are too distorted, It’s not a
reflection on the police photographer, it’s a
reflection of the difficulty of the job. […] bite
marks are present in 8 out of 10 sexual assault
and homicide cases and can be valuable evidence.
2 METHOD
2.1 Review of three 3D capture methods for the
acquisition and analysis of bite mark injuries
The 3D systems reviewed in this work are limited to
systems that have demonstrated the ability to capture
and render both the bite mark injury (real or pseudo)
and dental cast in 3D. The authors have selected
three separate methods to review against six assess-
ment benchmarks.
These six benchmarks are: (1) usability of hardware;
(2) usability of software; (3) accuracy (The closeness of
the measurement to actual known value. Although
accuracy is vital to the quality of the evidence, in
regard to the measurement of a bite mark, the actual
known value is difficult to quantify.); (4) precision
(The ability of the device to reproduce the same results
under the same conditions. The device’s ability to
produce consistent results is of the utmost importance.
The improvement in the reproducibility of the forensic
evidence created by imaging devices is a central point
in this work. An ideal measurement system is both
accurate and precise with measurements close to the
true value and values reproducible.); (5) court valida-
tion; and (6) price.
The three methods that met the stated criteria were:
1. Gesellschaft für Optische Messtechnik (GOM)
Tritop/Atoss (Advanced TOpmetric Sensor) II
system at the Institute of Forensic Medicine
Bern.4
2. ModelMaker H40 Laser scanner at the University
of Melbourne.5
IMAG 235 # RPS 2013
 3D IMAGING FOR BITE MARK ANALYSIS 353

3. Picza 3D scanner at the University of Granada.6

Each method was assessed against the benchmarks
with the information provided by the published
material on both the researchers’ findings and
manufacturers’ data. In the case of the GOM system,
one of the authors was able to witness the practical
application of the method first hand to supplement
the published data.

2.2 Performance analysis of non-dedicated systems

The previous three systems were dedicated to bite
mark analysis; however, some non-dedicated 2D and
3D systems may be suitable as well. The systems
tested here are those available to the authors at their
place of work. These systems can therefore be eva-
luated practically and in greater detail than those
known only from literature and brief demonstrations.
The aim of the experiments was primarily to show
which method (2D or 3D) demonstrates higher rates
of precision and accuracy. Four sets of experiments 2 Demonstration of the set-up for 2D image capture
were designed as follows.
Odontology (ABFO) no. 2 rigid scale] positioned on
the same focal plane as the anterior teeth. The same
2.2.1 Intra-operator experiment
focal length of lens, lighting and camera settings was
This first experiment was designed to test the used for the dental cast.
precision of collecting measurements from a bite Two 3D devices produced 3D mesh models of the
mark and a dental cast. The measurements, based on PBM and the dental cast. These instruments were
the British Association of Forensic Odontology7 a Vivid 910 Konica MinoltaH (Konica Minolta
guidelines, were performed using four different Holdings, Inc., Ramsey, NJ, USA) laser scanner
methods: and a Mavis stereo-photogrammetric camera system
N physical measurements (Fig. 3). Both instruments were calibrated to the
N 2D digital photographs
N 3D laser scanner (Vivid 910)
N 3D stereo-photogrammetry (Mavis Nikon).
The experiment was set up using a dental cast created
by dental technicians using the first author’s denti-
tion. The associated bite mark was created artificially
as a pseudo bite mark (PBM) using PhotoshopH
(Adobe Systems Incorporated, San Jose, CA, USA).
Using the imported digital image, the biting edge of
the dental cast was highlighted; the selected area was
then printed onto a transparent inkjet transfer paper.
The paper’s translucent property and sticky under-
surface allowed the image of the PBM to be applied
to a prosthetic arm to mimic the appearance of the
bruising pattern of a real bite mark.
The 2D photographs were obtained using a Nikon
D700 SLR with 60 mm Nikkor lens attached to a
stand (Fig. 2) with the scale [American Board of 3 The MAVIS camera system

IMAG 235 # RPS 2013 The Imaging Science Journal Vol 61

354 S T EVANS, C JONES AND P PLASSMANN
manufacturer’s specifications. As 3D devices use
triangulation to create the required data, an in-image
scale was not needed.
The measurements were achieved by measuring the
inter-canine distance of both the upper and lower
teeth and the biting edge (incisal edge) of the anterior
teeth. (The anterior teeth are the front six teeth of the
upper and lower jaws). The 14 separate measure-
ments were made using the Federation Dentaire
Internationale notation system.8
The physical measurements were made by hand
with the use of a standard rigid L-shaped scale
designed by the ABFO. The 2D images were saved in
the Tagged Image File Format (Tiff) and measured
using the measuring tool of Photoshop CS4. The
ruler was calibrated using the in-image ABFO scale
as a guide. The 3D data from the Mavis device were
opened in the proprietary Mavis software and
converted into the commonly used virtual reality
modelling language, and the file was then imported
into the 3D application MeshlabH (the MeshLab
system was developed by ISTI-CNR in the frame-
work of the EPOCH Network http://www.isti.cnr.it/)
for analysis. The data from the Vivid scanner were
also converted into a virtual reality modelling
language file for analysis.
All the measurements for the three methods were
repeated on ten separate occasions with a day’s rest in
between, and this was done to minimise ‘from
memory’ readings.
2.2.2 Inter-operator experiment
A second set of experiments were designed to test and
demonstrate which method of image capture (2D or
3D) created the least amount of inter-operator error.
The PBM and the prosthetic arm were used for this
experiment. Using the Nikon D700 and the British
Association of Forensic Odontology guidelines for
photography, three experienced forensic photogra-
phers were instructed to capture the PBM, on ten
separate occasions. The experiment was then re-
peated with the Mavis 3D system. All images were
treated and measured using the same methods as
employed in the first experiment.
2.2.3 Distortion experiment
A third set of experiments were designed to test and
demonstrate which method of image capture (2D or
3D) created the least amount of angular distortion
(photographic), which is one of the most common
The Imaging Science Journal Vol 61
4 NPL measurement block
errors in bite mark photography. The 2D and 3D
devices captured four sets of images from four
different angles. The cameras were placed on a tripod
and then, starting at 90u, moved to 70, 60 and 45u
angles. Measurements were collected from the width
and depth of three anterior teeth, the upper right
central incisor and the two upper canines.
2.2.4 National Physical Laboratory (NPL)
measurement block experiment
A final experiment was designed to test and
demonstrate the accuracy of the three (MAVIS,
Vivid and 2D) image capture methods. Steel mea-
surement blocks (Fig. 4) created by the NPL, which
have a known value, were used to test the instruments
accuracy. Five NPL square blocks with varying size
and depth (concave) circles were used. A red cross
was placed in the middle of the block, and then the
distance from the cross to the edge of the circle was
calculated with the depth of the circle included. This
was done to gather the true value as would be seen in
three dimensions. The five NPL blocks were scanned
and photographed five times by each instrument, and
the resulting images were opened in Meshlab and
Photoshop for measurement.
2.3 Requirement specification for a new system
The design of a system specification for the practical
reproducible acquisition of bite mark injuries was
produced from the results collected from the previous
review and assessment against the benchmarks and
experiments. Further information was collected via a
IMAG 235 # RPS 2013
 3D IMAGING FOR BITE MARK ANALYSIS 355

questionnaire sent to the UK’s leading forensic
odontologists, inquiring into their opinions as to
the qualities needed for a practical capture device and
analytical software.
3 RESULTS
3.1 Review of three 3D capture methods for the
acquisition and analysis of bite mark injuries
The forensic odontologist regards accuracy as an
important factor when capturing and analysing bite
mark injuries. However, to obtain reliable data, the
photographer/operator requires various attributes
from the technology. Experienced researchers might
overlook usability and price when reaching a conclu-
sion on the viability of a method. Such factors might
be important considerations for a police force or
hospital department in adopting a new approach to
bite mark image capture.
Table 1 summarises the result of the performance
of the three systems under test against the six
benchmarks. From the table, it is clear that there is
no single fully integrated system for bite mark
capture and analysis. Each method demonstrates
some strengths and weaknesses. At the time of
writing, only the Bern method has been used in a
real forensic case scenario (repeated later below).
Both the Melbourne and Granada methods use 3D
capture technology that is not suitable to the majority
of cases, due to lack of mobility and slow capture
time (both are research studies). Both Melbourne and
Granada methods use bite impressions, not a
patterned bruise (real or pseudo). This is not
representative of the majority of cases and as a
consequence may produce a bias into the results. The
presence of the indentations may have assisted the
operator to make consistent matches with the bite
impression and cast. However, both the Melbourne
and Granada methods were testing a proof of
concept and therefore it is not necessarily fair to
compare these methods with a real world setting.
In terms of accuracy of dental cast scans, the laser
scanners from the Melbourne and Granada methods
produce the best results. The GOM system from the
Bern method represents the current gold standard for
3D capture and analysis of bite mark injuries. The
Bern method gives the operator greater consistency,
workflow and importantly court validation. Yet at
£120 000, the GOM system is prohibitively expensive
for the majority of agencies and services in the
forensic field in the UK. Note that without the ability
to personally test the system, the authors cannot
reach a conclusion on the precision of this method.
3.2 Performance analysis of non-dedicated systems
3.2.1 Intra-operator experiment
The first experiment demonstrates that the measure-
ments collected by hand of both the cast and the
pseudo bite mark have the lowest precision, with a
standard deviation (SD) of 4.3 and 1.9%, respectively
as shown in Fig. 5.
The data obtained from the Vivid 910 demon-
strated the highest precision in regard to the dental
cast (Fig. 5) with an SD of 1.6%. The 2D photograph
of the cast showed an SD of 2.4%. The 3D model of
the cast generated by the MAVIS camera did not
demonstrate enough detail to make satisfactory
measurements.

Table 1 Benchmark summary chart. ‘Precision’ removed from table as access to equipment was unavailable and data were
not present in literature

Benchmark BERN MELBOURNE GRANADA

Usability Two devices needed. 1 optical,
of hardware 1 photogrammetry. ATOS large
Portable device. TRITOP small
very portable. ATOS would need
electrical supply. Used in Bite
mark case
Usability Two applications. 1 for 3D
of software creation 1 for analysis.
Expert level needed for analysis
Accuracy 0.07 to 1 mm
Court validation Yes
Price £120,000 for hardware £2000
to £3000 for software
One device. Laser. Not hand
held. Long scan time not
suitable for live victims.
Research only
Three applications. 1 for 3D
creation. 1 for analysis 1 for
animation and movement. Expert
level needed for third application
0.084 mm
None
£24,000 for arm £14, 000 for
scanner to £2000 to £3000 for software
One device. Laser. Not hand held.
Unable to put anatomy into
scanner due to size of scanner.
Not used in real bite mark case.
Research only
Two applicati ons. 1 for 3D
creation 1 for analysis. Second
application specifically designed
for bite mark analysis.
0.05 to 1 mm
None
£8000 to £10,000 for
hardware. Software is free

IMAG 235 # RPS 2013 The Imaging Science Journal Vol 61

356 S T EVANS, C JONES AND P PLASSMANN
5 Intra-operator error expressed in standard deviations as a percentage of the respective mean values
The measurements taken from the 2D photograph
of the PBM had the lowest SD of 0.8% (i.e. highest
precision). The PBM captured by the MAVIS system
demonstrated a slightly higher SD of 1.2%. The 3D
meshes generated by the Vivid 910 of the PBM
representation were too poor in quality for satisfac-
tory measurements.
3.2.2 Inter-operator experiment
The second experiment demonstrated that the use of
2D image technology for bite mark imaging has a
higher inter-operator error, with an SD between 2.3
and 8.5%, whereas 3D image capture is more precise
with an SD between 2 and 2.5% (Fig. 6).
3.2.3 Distortion experiment
The 2D camera produced the greatest variability in
the measurements. The measurements of the four
angles produced a range of SDs between 3.2 and
25.3%, with a mean SD of 9.9%.
The 3D Mavis system was more precise with the
measurements producing results ranging from 1.5 to
4.5% and a mean of 3.2%.
3.2.4 NPL measurement block experiment
The five NPL blocks were scanned and photo-
graphed; however, data from two blocks from the
Vivid scanner failed to adequately show the cross
6 Inter-operator error expressed in standard deviations
as a percentage of the respective mean values
The Imaging Science Journal Vol 61
marked in the centre of the block. As a consequence,
the results gathered from all the instruments of those
two blocks were disregarded. The measurements
from the five scans for each block were compared
with the known value of the said measurement. A t-
test was employed to calculate the probability (P)
that the two values stem from the same underlying
population. Hence, the smaller the P, the more
significant the difference between the two values
(with P,0.05 commonly used as a cut-off for
statistical significance). The P value generated by
the t-test can therefore be used to work out which
instrument is the closest in its accuracy to the known
value. The larger the P value, the more accurate the
instrument at scanning the NPL blocks.
The results shown in Table 2 demonstrate the
accuracy of the Vivid and MAVIS scanners in
relation to the measurements of the known value.
The difference between the two 3D scanners and the
measurements to the known value was statistically
insignificant. The results from the 2D camera
demonstrate that the reduction in the 3D object into
a 2D space creates inaccurate measurements that are
statistically significant if a curved surface is recorded.
3.3 Requirement specification for a new system
From the research conducted, the authors propose
several basic requirements of a 3D system for the
requisition and analysis of bite mark injuries:
1. Cost. If a 3D system is to replace the current 2D
method of image capture, the cost of such a
system will likely need to be similar to that of
current 2D systems. For small police forces and
hospital departments, the cost of a 3D system
may be the first aspect that is taken into
consideration before adoption of a 3D approach
to capture. Forensic odontologists are unlikely
to undertake the image capture themselves, but
IMAG 235 # RPS 2013
 3D IMAGING FOR BITE MARK ANALYSIS
will most likely be the individuals who perform
the bite mark analysis. The cost of a 3D system
may be divided between hardware and software
with the hardware being purchased by the police
or hospital department and the software pur-
chased by the forensic odontologist. The cost of
the software will need to be comparable with 2D
image software such as Adobe Photoshop.
2. Accuracy. The accuracy and appearance of the
images produced by a 3D system are of vital
importance. The average inter-canine distance of
an adult is approximately 35 mm and the mesial
to distal width of the central incisor is approxi-
mately 8.5 mm. The forensic odontologist would
therefore require a capture device with an
accuracy of 0.5 mm or less. However, the
appearance of the 3D model, be it the bite mark
or dental cast, is of equal importance. Once the
evidence has been collected and analysed, it may
be required to be presented in court by the forensic
Table 2 Demonstration of values of NPL blocks
IMAG 235 # RPS 2013
357
odontologist. The 3D models may be accurate to
0.5 mm but have an appearance that is not
completely consistent with the original. Any
inconsistencies in appearance may result in the
accuracy of the evidence to be called into question.
3. Portability. The following three factors influence
the requirement for the portability of a 3D
capture system for bite mark injuries: frequency
of use, the environment of the job and the
subject that is being scanned. Many bite mark
cases will involve environments that have little
space (hospital ward or cell in police station).
Many of the victims of bite mark injuries will be
children and may be in some distress and can be
difficult to photograph. A lightweight system
may be required to manage such typical scenar-
ios. A system that is not reliant on mains power
would also be an advantage.
4. Usability. Many of the injuries sustained by an
individual biting another person will be captured
The Imaging Science Journal Vol 61
358 S T EVANS, C JONES AND P PLASSMANN
7 Wire mesh of PBM from MAVIS system
by scene-of-crime officers. Due to the lack of
training and expertise, the present 2D image
capture technologies contribute to the errors
introduced into the bite mark evidence by the ope-
rator. Any 3D capture device will need to be robust
and very easy to use. Simplicity of operation will
likely assist in the capture of adequate data. The
speed of image capture is important. Any device
that cannot capture a single image in a few seconds
or less will not be appropriate for use.
4. The usability of the software is also crucial. Most
forensic odontologists will not have had sufficient
training or experience in complicated 3D model-
ling software such as 3D Studio MaxH (manu-
factured by Autodesk, San Rafael, USA). Any
software will need to be relatively easy to use.
4. Most bite mark analysis is done using Adobe
Photoshop, which is a complicated but powerful
application. However, most operators only use a
fraction of the software’s tools. The analysis
performed on the evidence consists of measuring
the distance, position, size and shape of the teeth
and bite marks. The required tools would be
from simple measuring to complicated move-
ment and alignment of at least two 3D models.
8 Colour render of PBM from MAVIS system
The Imaging Science Journal Vol 61
9 Wire mesh of cast from MAVIS system
4. To introduce a complete change in equipment
and software, the replacement technologies will
need to be of comparable usability with that of
the present 2D method.
5. Consistency (precision). Any system that is
capturing and analysing digital evidence needs
to provide consistency in its results. Without
consistently producing accurate results, opera-
tors will not use it and the courts will not
validate it.
4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
As Sheasby and MacDonald2 discuss, the presence of
some form of distortion is inherent in bite mark
analysis. The review of the existing problems in the
analysis of bite mark injuries demonstrated that the
acquisition of the injury is perhaps the only aspect in
which the forensic investigator can influence control
over distortion. The precision and accuracy of the
image capture device are of vital forensic importance;
however, our current understanding of bruise phy-
siology is not sufficient (there is a limited amount of
published data) to allow an accurate record of the
10 Colour render of cast from MAVIS system
IMAG 235 # RPS 2013
 3D IMAGING FOR BITE MARK ANALYSIS
11 Wire mesh of cast from Vivid system
true shape and size of a patterned injury. Thus,
testing the true accuracy of an image capture device is
difficult to ascertain in the case of a patterned bruise.
From conducting performance tests of 2D and 3D
methods, it is apparent that the limitations of 2D
camera capture introduce perspective distortion to
the photographic evidence.
When the operator fails to follow gold standard
techniques while using 2D cameras, the distortion
introduced reaches unacceptable levels. 3D capture is
more precise and reduces perspective and angular
distortion. The validation of 3D evidence of bite
mark injuries will be a complicated and lengthy
process. Such an undertaking may start with the
implementation of a trial with forensic odontologists
to refine the MAVIS system for bite mark analysis.
Once a suitable level of precision, accuracy and
usability has been achieved, then the system could be
appropriate for use in a suitable bite mark case. The
evidence will then be demonstrated to the court.
The conclusion reached from this work is that
the MAVIS hardware is effective at producing the
required 3D image of a bite mark for analysis. The
MAVIS camera captures and reproduces the 3D
structure of the bite mark faithfully in the 3D model
with no discernable distortion or operator error
(Figs. 7 and 8). The MAVIS has an error range of
¡1.0 mm (Personal communications, Dr Carl Jones,
University of Glamorgan.). This error range needs
improvement to compete with the GOM system. The
GOM devices can scan accurately within an error
range correct to 0.0.7–1.0 mm. The GOM system is
the only 3D method to be validated by a court of law
(Switzerland).
However, the MAVIS hardware at present is not
able to produce satisfactory results from the data
collected from a dental cast (Figs. 9 and 10). A laser
IMAG 235 # RPS 2013
359
12 Colour render of cast from Vivid system
scanner will be required to replicate a faithful
representation of a dental cast (Figs. 11 and 12).
In summary, to collect all the required data for 3D
forensic analysis of bite mark injuries and the suspect
or suspects’ dental casts, the operator will need to
use the MAVIS camera in conjunction with a laser
scanner.
Furthermore, the authors conclude that the
MAVIS software specification once developed into
a working application will assist the forensic odon-
tologist in conducting more robust and reliable
analysis of bite mark evidence.
REFERENCES
1 National Research Council. Strengthening Forensic
Science in the United States: A Path Forward, 2009
(National Academies Press, Washington, DC).
2 Sheasby, D. R. and MacDonald, D. G. A forensic
classification of distortion in human bite marks.
Forensic Sci. Int., 2001, 122, 75–78.
3 Freeman, A. J., Senn, D. R. and Arendt, D. M. Seven
hundred seventy eight bite marks: analysis by anatomic
location, victim and bitter demographics, type of crime,
and legal disposition. J. Forensic Sci., 2005, 50, 1436–1443.
4 Thali, M. J., Braun, M., Markwalder, T. H.,
Brueschweiler, W., Zollinger, U., Malik, N. J., Yen,
K. and Dirnhofer, R. Bite mark documentation and
analysis: the forensic 3D/CAD supported photogram-
metry approach. Forensic Sci. Int., 2003, 135, 115–121.
5 Blackwell, S. A., Taylor, R. V., Gordon, I., Ogleby,
C. L., Tanijiri, T., Yoshino, M., Donald, M. R. and
Clement, J. G. 3-D imaging and quantitative compar-
ison of human dentitions and simulated bite marks. Int.
J. Legal Med., 2007, 121, 9–17.
The Imaging Science Journal Vol 61
360 S T EVANS, C JONES AND P PLASSMANN

6 Martin-de las Heras, S., Valenzuela, A., Javier Valverde, A.,
Torres, J. C. and Luna-del-Castillo, J. D. Effectiveness of
comparison overlays generated with DentalPrint# software
in bite mark analysis. J. Forensic Sci., 2007, 52, 151–156.
7 British Association of Forensic Odontology. What is a
forensic odontologist and what is the scope of their work?
[online], 2002. [accessed 12 April 2010]. Available at:
,http://www.bafo.org.uk/guide.php.
8 Federation Dentaire Internationale. Two-Digit No-
tation [online], 2011. [accessed 28 June 2011]. Avail-
able at: ,http://www.fdiworldental.org/content/two-
digit-notation.

The Imaging Science Journal Vol 61 IMAG 235 # RPS 2013

Copyright of Imaging Science Journal is the property of Maney Publishing and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.