Scientific & TechnicalThe scientific basis for human bitemark analyses – a critical review
References (35)
Bite marks in forensic dentistry: a review of legal, scientific issues
Journal of the American Dental Association
(1995)The Herman Beerman lecture: embryology of human skin, a review of ultrastructural studies
Journal of Investigative Dermatology
(1971)- et al.
Bite marks in skin—mechanical factors
Journal of the Forensic Science Society
(1974) - et al.
Statistical problems in dental identification
Journal of the Forensic Science Society
(1974) - et al.
Computer comparison of bitemark patterns in identical twins
Journal of the American Dental Association
(1982) - et al.
Scanning electron microscopy in the investigation of bite marks in foodstuffs
Forensic Science
(1975) - et al.
Digital image cross–correlation technique for bite mark investigations
Science & Justice
(1997) - et al.
Anatomical location of bitemarks and associated findings in 101 cases from the United States
Journal of Forensic Sciences
(2000) - et al.
Teeth in the determination of human identity
British Dental Journal
(2001) Applied dental materials
(1995)
Bitemarks in forensic odontology
Journal of Forensic Odontostomatology
Bite marks in perishable substances. A method of pro-ducing accurate permanent models
British Dental Journal
Bitemarks in perishable substances – forensic aspects
Criminology
Successful indentification of a bite mark in a sandwich
International Journal of Forensic Dentistry
Apple bitemark indentification of a suspect
International Journal of Forensic Dentistry
A forensic investigation of teeth marks in soap
British Dental Journal
Cited by (86)
Oral bacterial DNA-based discrimination of human and canine saliva for the analysis of indistinct bite marks
2021, Forensic Science International: GeneticsJuror appraisals of forensic evidence: Effects of blind proficiency and cross-examination
2020, Forensic Science InternationalComputer-aided image analysis of crayfish bitemarks — reinterpreting evidence: A case report
2019, Forensic Science InternationalCitation Excerpt :Initiated approximately 10 years ago, this shift was propelled not only by the fact that forensic individualization scientists were intuiting whether paired marks matched or not, while historically, the courts rarely questioned the foundations upon which these experts depended, but also because of the rapid reporting today of erroneous forensic results on these types of evidence [8]. Within the last decade, scientists are questioning the core assumptions of these individualized forensic disciplines and the courts are following suit in addressing such challenges to asserted forensic expertise seriously [9–12]. Of special note was the explicit reference in the National Research Council report criticizing pattern evidence such as bitemarks [13].
Beliefs about error rates and human judgment in forensic science
2019, Forensic Science InternationalTri-dimensional pattern analysis of foodstuff bitemarks — A pilot study of tomographic database
2018, Forensic Science InternationalCitation Excerpt :This study was performed according with two general assumptions in bitemark analysis: the uniqueness of anterior human dentition and the transference of individualized dental characteristics to the bitten substrate [4,21]. Considering that bitemarks in certain foodstuffs can be more distinctive than the ones found on human skin and for that reason they present an important contribution to forensic research [1,21]. At last it was taken into account that the capture of tooth marks is more efficient in 3D versus 2D technology as mentioned in recent studies of Blackwell et al. [20], Martins de las Heras [5,33], and Thali [26,41].