1

Forensic Odontology and Bite Mark Analysis

Hailey Klay

110014272

SACR 3230: Forensic Anthropology

31 March 2022
2

Forensic Odontology and Bite Mark Analysis

Forensic odontology is a discipline of forensic anthropology that specializes in the

analysis of teeth and dental records for legal or identification purposes (Holobinko). Due to the

durability and slow decaying nature of teeth, experts in the field of forensic odontology are able

to examine dental remains to determine specific information about an individual such as their age

at the time of their death. Experts can also use dental remains to identify deceased individuals by

matching their remains to their antemortem dental records, as teeth are unique to every

individual (Holobinko). This distinct individuality of teeth also means that experts are able to use

dental records to identify and determine characteristics about those who are still alive, with

forensic odontology and bite mark analysis being used as evidence in a number of legal court

cases worldwide (Priyadharsini et al.). However, many have criticized the use of this discipline

in criminal court cases, citing low reliability and accuracy from a scientific perspective.

The post-mortem durability of human teeth means that dental remains are often well-

preserved when examining human remains. This is due to the fact that the bacteria that cause

dental decay do not survive after death, allowing for dental remains to become a common find in

archaeological discoveries (“Did Ancient Teeth Decay?”). From these remains, experts can

determine specific factors about the individual, such as their age at the time of their death. This is

because tooth development is very closely associated with chronological age, with experts

having the ability to estimate the age of an individual within close range and with high degrees

of accuracy (Holobinko). Experts can do this by determining the dental developmental period the

deceased was in at the time of their death, with the first stage of development being the

emergence of deciduous teeth during the second year of life, the emergence of two permanent

incisors and molar during years 6 and 8, the emergence of third molars between years 10 and 12,
3

and the eruption or impaction of the third molars at ages 18 and above (Holobinko). Due to the

ability of teeth to be highly resistant to decomposition effects after death, dental development

methods are therefore considered to produce more accurate age estimations than any other

skeletal remains (Holobinko).

The uniqueness of teeth to an individual means that they can be used for identification

purposes much like other forms of DNA. Dental remains can be compared to dental records in

order to identify an individual, as dental cavities, bone patterns, and other dental characteristics

are as unique to an individual as their fingerprint (Perez). This uniqueness also means that

experts in forensic odontology have the ability to match dental records to any dental impressions

that may be left at crime scene in a process called bite mark analysis. One of the earliest

applications of bite mark analysis in a criminal court case was in Britain in 1948, when a woman

named Phyllis Lucy Gorringe was found murdered with little evidence available to investigators

at the crime scene (Bruce-Chwatt). However, it was discovered during her autopsy that Phyllis

had a distinct bite mark on her right breast, likely indicating that the killer bit her during the

assault (Bruce-Chwatt). This led investigators to compare the teeth marks to those of Gorringe’s

husband Robert, who was a suspect for the crime (Bruce-Chwatt). Investigators determined that

Robert’s teeth marks were a match with the markings on Phyllis’s body, and he was ultimately

convicted for the murder of his wife and sentenced to life in prison (Bruce-Chwatt).

Many have questioned the reliability of bite mark analysis in criminal court cases, often

pointing out that the practice has no true scientific validity behind it (Clement and Blackwell).

One main criticism of bite mark analysis is that the practice is based upon descriptive analysis

rather than scientific evidence, which is unlike all other forms of DNA analysis that are accepted

in criminal courts (Clement and Blackwell). The lack of a scientific basis therefore results in
4

potential unreliability of evidence, which is a serious issue in the context of criminal convictions.

Many argue this further, stating that the analysis of dental impressions at crime scenes is

subjective to the individual due to a number of investigative cases where multiple experts

determined distinctly different results when examining the same piece of dental evidence (“Bite

Mark Evidence”). Additionally, the elasticity of human skin can cause dental impressions in it to

become deformed or warped, meaning that experts will primarily use photographs to compare a

person’s dentition to the bite marks being analysed (“Bite Mark Evidence”). Those who oppose

the use of bite mark analysis in court argue that this further proves the unreliability of bite mark

analysis, with many also pointing out how other forms of DNA evidence must meet certain

standards in order to be used in court cases, yet bite mark analysis does not have a set of required

standards (“Bite Mark Evidence”). Several advancements in bite mark analysis have been

proposed in order to improve its reliability, such as applying more research analysing methods,

conducting the comparison of bite marks under laboratory conditions, and utilising novel 4D

imaging technology for imaging purposes (Clement and Blackwell).

Forensic odontology is an important discipline of forensic anthropology, as experts in

the field are able to accurately identify deceased individuals through their dental remains as well

as determine specific characteristics about them such as their age at the time of death. Forensic

odontology has also allowed for the introduction of bite mark analysis as evidence in criminal

court cases, although there is much controversy surrounding the validity and reliability of the

process. By applying new advancements in technology to the practice, forensic odontologists can

improve the ability of bite mark analysis to accurately match dental impressions to guilty

individuals and allow for fair convictions in criminal trials.

5

Works Cited

“Bite Mark Evidence.” California Innocence Project, 26 Apr. 2019,

https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/bite-mark-evidence/.

Bruce-Chwatt, Robert Michael. “A Brief History of Forensic Odontology since 1775.” Journal

of Forensic and Legal Medicine, vol. 17, no. 3, 9 Feb. 2010, pp. 127–130.,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2009.12.007.

Clement, J.G., and S.A. Blackwell. “Is Current Bite Mark Analysis a Misnomer?” Forensic

Science International, vol. 201, no. 1-3, 8 Mar. 2010, pp. 33–37.,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.03.006.

“Did Ancient Teeth Decay?” ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), 28 May 2008,

https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/05/28/2244461.htm#:~:text=%22Teeth

%20tend%20to%20survive%20well,lost%20in%20the%20excavation%20process.

Holobinko, Anastasia. “Forensic Human Identification in the United States and Canada: A

Review of the Law, Admissible Techniques, and the Legal Implications of Their

Application in Forensic Cases.” Forensic Science International, vol. 222, no. 1-3, 4 June

2012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.06.001.

Perez, Rebecca. “A Look at Forensic Dentistry & How Teeth Are Used to Identify a Person.”

Today's RDH, 24 Jan. 2022, https://www.todaysrdh.com/a-look-at-forensic-dentistry-

how-teeth-are-used-to-identify-a-person/.

Priyadharsini, C, et al. “Evolution of Forensic Odontology: An Overview.” Journal of Pharmacy

and Bioallied Sciences, vol. 7, no. 5, 2015, p. 178., https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-

7406.155894.