You are being redirected because this document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.
    This document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.

    Volume 49, Issue 1 (January 2004)

    A Comparison Between Direct and Indirect Methods Available for Human Bite Mark Analysis

    (Received 23 July 2001; accepted 16 July 2003)

    Published Online: 2003


      Format Pages Price  
    PDF (252K) 8 $25   ADD TO CART

    Cite this document

    X Add email address send
      .RIS For RefWorks, EndNote, ProCite, Reference Manager, Zoteo, and many others.   .DOCX For Microsoft Word


    Comparison techniques used in bite mark analysis are many and varied, the choice of technique depending largely on personal preference. Until recently, no one technique has been shown to be better than the others, and very little research has been carried out to compare different methods. This study evaluates and compares the accuracy of direct comparisons between suspects' models and bite marks with indirect comparisons in the form of conventional traced overlays of suspects' models or a new method using photocopier-generated overlays. Artificial bite marks in pigskin were made using standardized sets of models and recorded as photographs and fingerprint powder lifts on tape. The bite mark photographs and fingerprint lifts were coded and randomized so that a blind comparison could be made with the models, traced overlays, and photocopier-generated overlays using a modified version of the American Board of Forensic Odontology Scoring (ABFO) System for Bite Marks.

    It was found that the photocopier-generated overlays were significantly more accurate at matching the correct bite mark to the correct models irrespective of whether the bite mark was recorded photographically or as a fingerprint lift. The photocopier-generated overlays were also found to be more sensitive at matching the correct bite marks to the correct models than the other two methods used. The modified ABFO scoring system was able to discriminate between a correct match and several incorrect matches by awarding a high score to the correct match.

    Author Information:

    Craig, GT
    Reader and honorary consultant in oral pathology, and forensic odontologist, School of Clinical Dentistry, Sheffield,

    Kouble, RF
    general dental practitioner, University of Sheffield, Sheffield,

    Stock #: JFS2001252


    DOI: 10.1520/JFS2001252

    Title A Comparison Between Direct and Indirect Methods Available for Human Bite Mark Analysis
    Symposium ,
    Committee E30