J i& E M
SPECIAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Guidelines for bite mark analysis
Am erican Board o f Forensic O dontology, Inc
B ite m ark evidence is used in many courts
and in the m ilitary justice system. Such evi
dence may be crucial to the resolution o f the
investigation. D etailed guidelines offer spe
cific methods o f collecting evidence.
I t has been established th at th e dental
p rofession can contribute to th e a d
m in istratio n o f ju stice th ro u g h th e
use o f bite m ark evidence.1 T h e courts in
m any states and the m ilitaryjustice system
have considered and accepted this form o f
e v i d e n c e . 2-3 T h i s a r t i c l e p r e s e n t s
guidelines fo r the th o ro u g h investigation
o f bite m arks. T h e guidelines w ere d e
veloped d u rin g a 3-year p eriod by th e
A m erican B oard o f Forensic O dontology.
A b rie f b ackground an d historical p e r
spective o f the guidelines also are p re
sented. A n article th at details th e scientific
basis fo r the scoring system, which is an
integral p a rt o f th e guidelines, may be
fo u n d elsew here.4
Background and historical perspective
Bite m a rk investigations have involved
bites by b oth hum an s an d anim als. T h e
victims have been living o r deceased. T h e
perso n w ho was bitten has been th e a t
tacker o r th e victim o f the attack. For th e
m ost p art, bite m arks have been fo u n d on
people involved in crim es related to sex, to
child abuse, o r to altercations o f various
types.5,6
In a n u m b e r o f cases, it has been possi
ble to m atch the bite m ark th at is being
investigated to th e teeth o f th e p erso n sus
pected o f having com m itted th e crim e.
W hen this type o f evidence is available,
fre q u en tly it is crucial to th e resolution o f
th e case. In som e situations, o th e r evi
d en ce o f the suspects involvem ent may be
circum stantial, b u t th e bite m ark evidence
may be a direct indicator th a t th e suspect
was with th e victim at a certain tim e an d
th a t th e suspect com m itted an aggressive,
violent act (that is, biting). Given this in
form atio n , along with o th e r relev an t evi
d ence, th e ju d g e o r ju ry is likely to find
th a t the p e rp e tra to r o f th e bite also com
m itted th e rap e, m u rd e r, o r o th e r crim inal
act. Likewise, evidence proving th a t the
suspect did n o t create the bite m ark may
be im p o rta n t in p ersu a d in g th e ju d g e or
ju r y th a t the suspect did n ot com m it the
crim e w ith which he o r she is charged.
As is tru e o f o th e r form s o f forensic
evidence, w ell-qualified people have had
d iffe rin g opinions reg a rd in g th e in te rp re
tation an d p ro p e r use o f bite m ark evi
d en ce in a given case. Even th o u g h bite
m ark analysis is accepted widely by the
courts, th e fu n d am en tal validity an d scien
tific basis fo r its use as evidence frequently
has been challenged d u rin g trials. Also
criticized has been th e lack o f sta n d ard s
fo r collection an d use o f this type o f evi
d en ce. In 1977, th e odontology section o f
th e A m erican A cadem y o f Forensic Sci
ences received a re p o rt from its com m ittee
on reco m m en d ed m eth o d s. H ow ever, the
re p o rt was n ot published in th e scientific
literatu re. In 1978, a legal jo u rn a l p u b
lished an article suggesting th a t th e use o f
bite m ark evidence be cu rtailed p en d in g
th e establishm ent o f a com m ittee to d e
velop sta n d ard s fo r th e use o f this type o f
evid en ce.7
A gainst this b ack g ro u n d , th e o d o n to l
ogy section o f the A m erican A cadem y o f
F orensic Sciences ap p o in ted a com m ittee
in 1980 to develop bite m ark stan d ard s.
T h e academ y, w hich was established in
1948, is a national o rganization ded icated
to ed u c a tio n an d re se a rc h fo r th e a d
v ancem ent o f th e forensic sciences, in clu d
ing th e stan d ard izatio n o f scientific tech
n iq u e s. C o n siste n t w ith th is go al, th e
a c a d e m y s p o n s o re d th e fo rm a tio n o f
b o ard s to certify forensic ex p erts in such
fields as a n th ro p o lo g y , path o lo g y , an d
to x ic o lo g y . T h e A m e r ic a n B o a rd o f
F o re n sic O d o n to lo g y is th e c e rtify in g
b o a rd in forensic o dontology sponsored
by th e academ y.
In 1981, th e A m erican B oard o f F o re n
sic O dontology voted to u n d e rta k e an ac
tivity sim ilar to th a t o f th e odontology sec
tion o f th e academ y. T h e resuli was the
JADA, Vol. 112, March 1986 383
SPECI AL C O N T R I B U T I O N S

fo rm atio n o f a conjoint com m ittee th a t
was given the assignm ent o f developing
bite m ark guidelines.
Methods and materials
T h e com m ittee used a consensus ap p ro ac h to
d evelop tentative guidelines fo r collecting evi
d en ce from th e victim a n d from the suspect.
T h e com m ittee th en a d d ressed the follow ing
question: how stro n g m u st the evidence be b e
fo re an e x am in er reliably can conclude th a t
th e re is, o r is not, a m atch betw een a bite m ark
a n d th e teeth of a suspect? T o answ er this q u e s
tio n , it was d ecid ed th a t an ideal a p p ro a c h
m ig h t be to d efin e th e te rm m atching p o in t a n d
th e n to research the n u m b e r o f m atch in g points
th a t w ould pro v id e c o rre c t identification in
every instance. T h e com m ittee recognized th a t
such a n exacting process does n o t exist even in
th e field o f fin g e rp rin t analysis o r toolm ark
analysis. N onetheless, it was co n sid ered essen
tial to a tte m p t to q u a n tify a n d m easu re the
w eight o r value o f bite m ark evidence because
o f the sh a rp differen ces o f o p in io n th a t have
e m e rg e d from q u alified e x p erts in crim inal
trials re g a rd in g th e in te rp re ta tio n o f bite m ark
evidence.
ft also was the com m ittees view th at a g re e
m en t on a u n ifo rm scoring system should, as a
m inim um , im prove co m m unication a n d im part
m ean in g to th e loosely used term , m atching
point. W ith such a g ree m e n t, the n u m b e r o f
m atching points in a case should have signifi
cance in evaluating th e w eight o f th e evidence.
Also, the availability o f a u n ifo rm scoring sys
tem m ight assist investigators in reach in g con
clusions, m uch as quantitative values assist o r
thodontists, oral a n d m axillofacial surgeons,
a n d o th e r practitioners in re ac h in g diagnostic
conclusions.
T h e c o m m itte e d r a fte d te n ta tiv e scoring
guidelines. T h ese w ere tested by the com m ittee
in studies o f test bite m ark s o n an e x p erim en tal
anim al a n d o f case m aterial in which the p e rp e
tra to r was know n. T h e guidelines th en were
subjected to w ider testing, including a study in
w hich 52 forensic dentists participated.
O n Feb 18-20, 1984, the A m erican B oard o f
Forensic O dontology c o n d u cted a w orkshop
d evoted to the subject o f the analysis o f bite
m arks. M ore th an 30 p eople p articipated in the
w orkshop. All p articip an ts w ere diplom ates o f
the bo ard , o r applicants w ho had been d e te r
m ined to be eligible to be certified.
T h e com m ittee used the suggestions o f each
o f the w orkshop g ro u p s as th e basis for rew rit
ing the guidelines. T h e revised guidelines were
p re sen te d to th e particip an ts fo r discussion.
A f t e r s e v e r a l a d d i t i o n a l r e v is io n s , th e
guidelines w ere a d o p te d by the w orkshop p a r
ticipants on Feb 20, 1984. T h e guidelines were
a d o p te d by th e A m erican B oard o f Forensic
O dontology o n Feb 21, 1984.
T h e guidelines follow.

Guidelines for bite mark analysis

T h e se g uidelines a re the result o f a collective e ffo rt o f the particip an ts o f D. Color

th e bite m ark w orkshop o f th e A m erican B o ard o f Forensic O dontology
assem bled in A naheim , CA, Feb 18-20, 1984. T h ese guidelines a re con T h e color should be noted, for exam ple, re d , p u rp le , etc.
sid ered dynam ic, n o t static, a n d will be m odified as significant develop
m en ts evolve. C areful use o f these guidelines in any bite m ark analysis will
E. Size
e n h an c e th e quality o f th e investigation a n d conclusions.
T h e collection o f evidence falls into several categories. V ertical a n d horizontal dim ensions o f th e bite m ark should be
1. D escription o f bite m ark(s).
n o ted , preferab ly in th e m etric system.
2. Collection o f evidence fro m victim.
3. C ollection o f evidence from suspect.
F. Type of injury
T h is is follow ed by analysis o f the evidence.

1. Petechial h e m o rrh a g e
I. Description of bite mark
2. C ontusion (ecchymosis)
3. A brasion
B oth in th e case o f a living victim o r deceased individual, th e odon-
4. L aceration
tologist should d e te rm in e a n d reco rd certain vital inform ation.
5. Incision
6. Avulsion
A. Demographics
7. A rtifact
It should also be no ted w h e th er the skin su rface is in d en te d o r
1. N am e o f victim sm ooth.
2. Case n u m b e r A t som e p o in t th e o dontologist will evaluate th e evidence to d eterm in e
3. D ate of exam ination such things as position of m axillary a n d m an d ib u lar arches, location and
4. R e ferrin g agency position o f individual teeth , o r in tra d en ta l characteristics. T h is may or
5. Person to contact m ay n o t be possible a t th e tim e o f initial exam ination a n d will be covered
6. A ge o f victim below:
7. Race o f victim
8. Sex o f victim II. Collection of evidence from victim
9. N am e o f exam iner(s)
It is assum ed th a t evidence g a th e rin g from bite m ark victims will be
B. Location of bite mark d o n e w ith autho rizatio n fro m th e a p p ro p ria te authorities.
It should first be d e te rm in e d w h e th er th e bite m ark has been
1. D escribe anatom ical location affected by w ashing, c o ntam ination, lividity, em balm ing, decom posi
2. D escribe surface c o n to u r: flat, c urved, o r irre g u la r tion, o r chan g e o f position.
3. D escribe tissue characteristics:
a. U n d erly in g stru c tu re : bone, cartilage, m uscle, fat
b. Skin: relatively fixed o r mobile A. Photography

C. Shape A variety o f types o f p h o to g rap h ic e q u ip m e n t a n d films m ay be

used as d escribed below. W hile it is recognized th a t th e odontologist
T h e sh ap e o f th e bite m ark should be described; fo r exam ple, is o ften re q u ire d to w ork with evidence p ro v id ed by o th e r sources
essentially ro u n d , ovoid, crescent, o r irreg u lar. th a t is less th an ideal, w henever possible he should obtain o r pro-

384 JADA, Vol. 112, March 1986


duce p h o to g ra p h s w hich m eet the follow ing guidelines:
1. O rie n ta tio n a n d close-up p h o to g ra p h s sh o u ld be taken.
2. P ho to g rap h ic reso lu tio n should be o f h igh quality.
3. I f color Film is u sed , accuracy of color balance should be assured.
4. P h o to g rap h s o f the m ark should be tak e n with a n d w ithout a scale
in place.
5. W h en th e scale is used, it should be on the sam e p lan e a n d adjacent
to th e bite m ark. It presently a p p ea rs desirable to include a circu
la r re fe re n ce in a d d itio n to a lin e a r scale.
6. T h e m ost critical p h o to g ra p h s should be taken in a m a n n e r th at
will elim inate distortion.
7. In the case o f a living victim, it m ay be beneficial to obtain serial
p h o to g ra p h s o f th e bite m ark.
B. Salivary swabbing
W hen ev er possible, salivary trace evidence should be collected ac
c o rd in g to re co m m e n d a tio n s o f the testin g laboratory.
C. Impressions
1. Im pressions sh o u ld be taken o f th e surface o f th e bite m ark
w henever it a p p e a rs th at this m ay p ro v id e useful inform ation.
2. T h e im pression m aterials used should m eet A m erican D ental
A ssociation specifications a n d should be id en tifie d by nam e in the
re p o rt.
3. Suitable s u p p o rt should be p rovided fo r th e im pression m aterial
to accurately re p ro d u c e body co n to u r.
4. T h e m aterial used to p ro d u c e the cast sh o u ld accurately re p re se n t
the area o f im pression a n d should be p re p a re d a ccording to the
m a n u fa c tu re rs instructions.
0. Tissue samples
T issue specim ens o f the bite m ark should be retain ed w henever it
a p p ea rs; this m ay provide useful info rm atio n .
III. Collection of evidence from suspect
B efore collecting evidence from the suspect, the o dontologist should
ascertain th a t th e necessary search w a rran t, c o u rt o rd e r, o r legal
consent has b e en ob tain ed , a n d should m ake a copy o f this d o cu m en t
p a rt o f his reco rd s. T h e c o u rt d o c u m e n t o r c o n sen t should be
a d eq u ate to p erm it collection o f the evidence listed below:
A. O btain history o f any d e n ta l tre a tm e n t su b seq u en t to o r in p ro x im
ity to the d ate o f bite m ark.
B. Photography
W henever possible, good quality e x tra o ral p h o to g ra p h s sho uld be
taken, both full face a n d profile. In tra o ra l p h o to g rap h s preferably
w ould include fro n tal view, two lateral views, occlusal view o f each
a rch , a n d any a d d itio n al p h o to g ra p h s th a t m ay provide useful
inform ation. It is also useful to p h o to g ra p h the m axim um inter-
incisal o p e n in g w ith scale in place. I f in an im ate m aterials, such as
foodstuffs, a re used for test bites, the results should be preserved
photographically.
C. Extraoral examination
T h e e x tra o ral exam ination should include observation a n d re c o rd
ing o f significant soft a n d h a rd tissue factors th a t m ay influence
biting dynam ics, such as tem p o ro m a n d ib u la r jo in t status, facial
asym m etry, m uscle tone, a n d balance. M easurem ent o f m axim al
o p e n in g o f the m o u th should be taken, n o tin g any deviations in
o p e n in g o r closing, as well as any significant occlusal d isharm onies.
SPECIAL CONTRIBUTIONS
T h e p resence o f facial scars o r evidence o f su rg ery should be n o ted ,
as well as th e p resence o f facial hair.
D. Intraoral examination
1. In cases in which saliva evidence has been tak en from th e victim,
saliva evidence sh o u ld also be tak en fro m th e suspect in accor
d a n ce w ith the specifications o f th e testing laboratory.
2. T h e ton g u e should be e x am in ed in re fe re n ce to size a n d function.
A ny abnorm ality such as ankyloglossia sh o u ld be n oted.
3. T h e p erio d o n tal co ndition sh o u ld be observed with p a rticu la r
re fe re n ce to m obility a n d area s o f in flam m ation o r h y p e rtro p h y .
Also, if a n te rio r tee th a re m issing o r badly b ro k e n dow n it should
be d e te rm in e d how long these c o nditions have existed.
4. I t is reco m m e n d e d that, w hen feasible, a d e n ta l c h a rt o f the
suspects teeth be p re p a re d , in o r d e r to en co u ra g e th o ro u g h study
o f the dentition.
E. Impressions
W hen ev er feasible, at least two im pressions should be taken o f each
a rch , using m aterials th a t m eet a p p ro p ria te A m erican D ental Asso
ciation specifications a n d a re p re p a re d acco rd in g to th e m an u fa c
t u r e r s recom m endations, u sin g accepted d e n ta l im pression tec h
niques. T h e interocclusal relatio n sh ip should be reco rd e d .
F. W hen ev er feasible, sam ple bites sh o u ld be m ad e in to a n a p p ro p ri
ate m aterial, sim ulating th e type o f bite u n d e r study.
G. Study casts
M aster casts should b e p re p a re d using A m erican D ental Associa
tion a p p ro v ed T y p e IV stone p re p a re d acco rd in g to m a n u fa c tu r
e r s specifications, using accepted d e n ta l techniques. A dditional
casts m ay be fabricated in a p p ro p ria te m aterials for special studies.
W h en additional m odels a re re q u ire d , they should be d u p licated
fro m m aster casts, using accepted d uplicatio n p ro ced u res. L abeling
should m ake it clear w hich m aste r cast was utilized to p ro d u c e a
duplicate. T h e teeth a n d ad jacen t soft tissue areas o f the m aster
casts sh o u ld not be a lte re d by carving, trim m in g , m ark in g , o r o th e r
alterations.
IV. Evaluation of evidence
M any m eth o d s have been used to study bite m ark in fo rm a tio n a n d it
is n o t the in te n t o f these g uidelines to m an d a te specific m eth o d s o f
analysis.
As p a rt o f the analysis, it is sug g ested th a t th e findings be e valuated
in accordance with th e follow ing system .
Scoring guide for bite mark analysis (see scoring sheet)
G eneral In stru ctio n : E valuate each fe a tu re o n th e score sheet.
E n te r a score only if reliable in fo rm a tio n is available.
Gross
I f all teeth th a t can be individually id en tifie d in th e bite m ark a re also
p re se n t in th e suspects m o u th , aw ard o n e point. T h is m erely estab
lishes th a t the m ark could have been m ade by suspect because h e has
th e requisite teeth. I f th e n u m b e r a n d a sso rtm en t o f tee th p re se n t is
distinctive, aw ard th re e points. E xam ple: Suspect has teeth 6, 7, 10, 11
a n d is m issing 8, 9. T h is is clearly reflected in m ark. A w ard th ree
points. I f m ark shows teeth th a t w ere n o t p re se n t in suspect's m o u th
w hen bite was m ade, suspect is elim inated.
GUIDELINES FOR BITE MARK ANALYSIS 385
SPECIAL CONTRIBUTIONS

I f a tooth has a distinctive vertical position above o r below the occlusal

A B FO SC OR IN G SH EE T FOR B ITE M A R K A N A L Y S IS
(Im p o rta n t: Use o n ly w ith scoring guide, score o n ly reliab le info rm a tion )
th a t is reflected in the bite m ark , aw ard o n e point. E xam ple: T o o th
# 10 is dim inutive (a peg lateral). All o th e r a n te rio rs a re no rm al a n d
Case Name:____________________________________________________________ SCORE to u ch th e incisal plane. All a n te rio rs a re visualized in bite m ark , b u t
Features A n alyze d No. o f Points M ax. Mand. Discrepancy # 1 0 barely m arks. A w ard o n e point.
( if any)
GROSS
A ll teeth in m ark present in suspect's m ou th "O ne per arch
I f th e re is an identifiable spacing betw een the m ark in g edges o f ad ja
S iie o f arches consistent . 0na ^ arch cen t teeth in the bite m ark , aw ard o n e p o in t p e r space. A w ard th ree
p oints if distinctive.
Shape o f arches consistent "O ne per arch

T O O T H PO SITION Intradental features

T o o th and to o th m ark in same labiolingual position *O ne per to o th

T oo th and m ark in same ro ta tio n a l po sition "O ne per to o th N ote: In tra d e n ta l featu res can be scored only in bite m arks reflecting
(w h ethe r rotated o r norm al)
d etailed d e n ta l anatom y.
V e rtica l p o s ition o f t o o th re. occlusal plane matches Q ne p r
de pth o f m ark (use o n ly in u nusual case) m atching to o th

Spacing betw een adjacent m arking edges *O ne per space

IN T R A D E N T A L F EA T U R E S
Mesiodistal w id th o f to o th matches m ark
(use o n ly i f in d iv id u a l t o o th is c lea rly m arked)
In th e ra re case in which the m esiodistal w idth o f an individual tooth
a p p e a rs to be accurately re g iste red in the bite m ark, aw ard one p o in t
p e r m atching tooth.
*O ne per to o th

Labiolin gual w id th o f to o th matches m ark " T h r e e per to o th

0 R a ttr itio n o f edge matches m ark
D istinctive curvature o f to o th incisal edge
matches m ark (use o n ly in unusual case)
O th er d is tin c tiv e fe atures (frac tu re d teeth,
unusual anatom y)
M ISC ELLA N EO U S
Suspect has one edentulous arch and th is is
reflected in b ite m ark
'Three points i f feature is significantly distinctive.
"O n ly in case permitting accurate measurement.
I f th e incisal edge o f o n e o r m ore a n te rio r teeth has a distinctive
c u rv a tu re th a t is also e v id e n t in th e bite m ark, aw ard a m axim um o f
Three per to o th th re e points p e r m atching tooth. E xam ple: Incisal edge is extrem ely
c u rv e d , o r is absolutely stra ig h t a n d is sim ilarly seen in bite m ark.
Three per to o th
A w ard th re e points.
Three
I f th e labiolingual w idth o f th e to o th m atches th e m ark , o r if th e w orn
incisal e d g e m atches, aw ard th re e points p e r tooth only in a well-
T otal, each arch:
d e m a rca ted case p e rm ittin g accurate com parison. Exam ple: T h e m ark
G rand T otal: clearly shows the cusp tip o f a m axillary first p re m o lar a n d o n e ab rad e d
(th at is, w orn) low er incisor, w hich m atch suspects teeth. A w ard th ree
points p e r to o th , totaling six points.
Signature Date

2/20/84 Committee on Bite Mark Guidelines

Raymond Rawson; Norman Sperber; Gerald Vale. Chairman
I f the size o f the m ark is approxim ately th e sam e as th e arch, aw ard o ne
point. If th e size o f th e d e n ta l arch is u n u su a l a n d th e bite m ark
m atches, aw ard th re e points in exceptional cases only.
Odontology, Inc, 1984.
I f th ere a re o th e r distinctive fe atu res o f individual teeth th a t cross
m atch, aw ard th re e points p e r too th . Exam ple: T e e th 8 a n d 9 have
fra c tu re d incisal edges th a t cause ja g g e d m arks in the skin. A w ard
th re e points p e r too th . N ote th a t this fe atu re m ig h t also have been
a w ard e d th re e points p e r to o th u n d e r m esiodistal w idth.
T he guidelines, as printed, are copyrighted by the American Board o f Forensic

I f the sh a p e o f th e a rc h a n d bite m ark a re consistent, aw ard o n e point.
I f th e sh ap e o f th e d e n ta l a rch is distinctive a n d th e bite m ark m atches,
aw ard th re e points. E xam ple: Suspect has n arro w , V -shaped arch a n d
this is reflected in bite m ark. A w ard th ree points.
Tooth position
If the to o th a n d th e c o rre sp o n d in g tooth m ark a re in th e sam e labio-
lingual position relative to th e re st o f the a rch , aw ard o n e point. I f the
tooth position is distinctive, aw ard th ree points. E xam ple: Six a n te rio r
teeth a re visualized in th e bite m ark. All a re well aligned except # 7
w hich is 2 m m to th e labial. I f this m atches suspects teeth , aw ard o n e
po in t fo r each o f th e five w ell-aligned teeth a n d th re e points fo r tooth
# 7 . T o ta l score: 8.
I f th e to o th a n d th e m a rk show th e sam e ro tatio n al position, aw ard o ne
po in t p e r tooth. I f the ro tatio n is distinctive, aw ard th re e points. If
m ark is too d iffu se to d e m o n stra te rotations, d o n o t score.
T h e 1983-1984 committee on bite m ark guidelines was comprised o f G erald L.
Vale, DDS, MDS, chairm an; Raymond D. Rawson, DDS, MA; N orm an D. Sperber,
DDS; and Edward E. H erschaft, DDS, MS. T h e chairman thanks Dr. Rawson for the
preparation and research perform ed in connection with the workshop; Thom as C.
Krauss, DDS, for serving as program chairm an; and Paul G. Stimson, DDS, MS, for
assistance in developing the workshop program . Robert B. J. Dorion, DDS, served
as chairm an and editor o f the earlier committee on recom m ended m ethods. Ad
dress requests for reprints to the American Board o f Forensic Odontology, Inc, 225
S Academy Blvd, Suite 201, Colorado Springs, CO 80910.
1. Sognnaes, R.D. Forensic stomatology. N Engl J Med 296(4): 197-203, 1977.
2. Furst, G. Newsletter. American Society o f Forensic Odontology. Winter, 1984.
3. US v. Martin. 9 M J 731 (NCMR 1979).
4. Rawson, R.D., and others. Reliability o f the scoring system o f the American
Board o f Forensic Odontology for hum an bite marks. J Forensic Sci, to be pub
lished.
5. Rawson, R.D., and others. Incidence of bite marks in a selected juvenile
population: a preliminary report. J Forensic Sci 29(l):254-259, 1984.
6. Vale, G.L., and Noguchi, T .T . Anatomical distribution of hum an bite marks in
a series o f 67 cases. J Forensic Sci 28(l):61-69, 1983.
7. Hale, A. T h e admissibility o f bite m ark evidence. South Calif Law Rev
51:309-334, 1978.

386 JADA, Vol. 112, March 1986