The use of dental evidence, including dental records and bite marks, for identification. Bite mark comparison in particular has drawn significant scientific criticism over its reliability as a means of identifying a specific individual.
Facts
Disputed
Known LimitationThe American Board of Forensic Odontology progressively narrowed its own standards between 2007 and 2018, no longer sanctioning terms asserting individual identification "without doubt" and limiting permitted conclusions to exclude, not exclude, or inconclusive; the Board and practicing odontologists maintain that exclusion determinations, distinct from the individual-identification claims the 2009 NAS report addressed, retain forensic value. 2 Sourced to the subject's own accountThe American Board of Forensic Odontology progressively narrowed its own standards between 2007 and 2018, no longer sanctioning terms asserting individual identification "without doubt" and limiting permitted conclusions to exclude, not exclude, or inconclusive; the Board and practicing odontologists maintain that exclusion determinations, distinct from the individual-identification claims the 2009 NAS report addressed, retain forensic value. What It ExaminesTeeth and dental work, used to identify the dead by comparison with dental records, and historically also for bite mark comparison, a practice now under serious scientific challenge. 1 Formalized YearSourced to the subject's own accountDates to the founding of the American Board of Forensic Odontology in 1976, the certifying body whose own standards later narrowed what a bite-mark comparison may conclude (see known-limitation). Known LimitationThe 2009 National Academy of Sciences report found no scientific basis for the claim that bite mark comparison can reliably identify a biter, while leaving dental identification of the dead uncontested. 3 Cross-Tradition Connections
Cases Where Used
Bite-mark testimony matching Bundy's teeth to a bite left on victim Lisa Levy was decisive at his 1979 trial.
Sources
Open Questions (1 open question)
Does bite-mark comparison retain any valid forensic use?
The 2009 National Academy of Sciences report found no scientific basis for concluding that a bite mark can be matched to one person's dentition to the exclusion of all others, and a 2022 NIST draft review reached a similar conclusion. The American Board of Forensic Odontology has accepted this for identification claims and, between 2007 and 2018, progressively restricted its own diplomates to three findings only: exclude, not exclude, or inconclusive. Whether even an exclusion determination meets a reliable scientific standard, or whether the underlying premise that human dentition and bite-mark transfer are sufficiently distinctive and stable has itself been adequately tested, remains contested between the certifying body and the discipline's critics.
What would resolve this A published, adequately powered black-box study of forensic odontologists' exclusion decisions, of the kind the 2011 Ulery fingerprint study provided for latent-print examiners, measuring false-exclusion and false-non-exclusion rates under casework-like conditions, would give the exclude/not-exclude claim the empirical grounding NAS and NIST found missing for identification.
Forensic odontology and forensic science methodologyWikipedia: Forensic Dentistry
Dissenting Readings (1 dissenting reading)
Known Limitation
The American Board of Forensic Odontology accepts that bite-mark evidence cannot support an individual "match" and has since 2013 to 2018 restricted its own diplomates to exclude, not-exclude or inconclusive findings, with recommended blind verification by a second examiner; the Board maintains that a properly conducted exclusion determination remains useful to an investigation even though the stronger identification claims the 2009 NAS report and the 2022 NIST draft review criticized are no longer defensible or sanctioned.
A dissenting reading, from American Board of Forensic OdontologyWikipedia: Forensic Dentistry
Frequently Asked Questions
Is bite-mark evidence still used in court?
In a narrower form. The American Board of Forensic Odontology no longer sanctions testimony that a bite mark identifies one specific person to the exclusion of everyone else; since standards updated between 2007 and 2018, its diplomates are limited to exclude, not exclude, or inconclusive findings. Some courts continue to admit exclusion testimony under those narrower standards, while a 2022 NIST draft review found the underlying research insufficient even for that use, so the discipline's courtroom role remains actively contested rather than settled.Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.