See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331563818

A comparative study on human and domestic animal bitemark patterns: An

aid in forensic investigation

Article · December 2018

DOI: 10.5958/0974-0171.2018.00008.0

CITATIONS READS

0 120

3 authors, including:

Abraham Johnson
Gujarat Forensic Sciences University
11 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Forensic Odontology and Anthropology View project

Biteprint- A new approach for bitemark analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abraham Johnson on 07 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

doi: 10.5958/0974-0171.2018.00008.0 Indian J. Vet. Res. Vol. 27 No.2. 2018: 1-6

A comparative study on human and domestic animal bitemark

patterns: An aid in forensic investigation
Abraham Johnson1, Astha Pandey1 and P.V. Parikh2
Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar, (Gujarat), 2College of Veterinary Science and Animal
Husbandry, Anand, (Gujarat), India Correspondence: Email:[email protected]

[Received 7 September 2018; Accepted 16 December 2018]

Citation: Johnson Abraham, Pandey Astha and Parikh, P.V. (2018). A comparative study on human and
domestic animal bitemark patterns: An aid in forensic investigation. Indian J. Vet. Res. 27(2): 1-6.

ABTSRACT
Bitemark analysis of humans and domestic animals is by far the most demanding and complicated part of
forensic dentistry. This study compared and analyzed the bite mark impression patterns of 34 domestic animals
and 16 humans. Bitemark comparison included comparing the bitemark of the suspected biter's distinctive
dental features to determine whether a link exists between the two sets of evidence. Oval or elliptical arch shape
of humans, circular to oval shape of dog, circular arch shape of cat was noted. The incisor morphology for
humans was rectangular shape, oval to rectangular for dogs, circular for cats was observed. The inter canine
distance of humans measured on dental cast ranged from 22-40 mm with a standard deviation of 5.0 and mean
of 33.2, 32-50 mm with a standard deviation of 4.11 and mean of 38.44 for dogs, 11.80 to 18.24 mm with a
standard deviation of 2.44 and mean of 16.14 for cats. Intercanine distance, arch shape are few, simple reliable
parameter to differentiate between bite marks that are produced by humans and domestic animals. The outcome
of the study serves and helps the forensic fraternity of different expertise such as forensic odontologist, forensic
pathologists, veterinarians, biologists, crime investigators, and others.
Keywords: Animals, Bitemarks, Forensic identification,

Forensic odontology is a discipline that domestic violence (child, partner, elder

has originated from a parent core domain of abuse), and batter where a forensic
science, but has evolved to encompass a odontologist involves himself in the
unique body of knowledge and techniques. management, examination, evaluation and
Forensic odontology is a highly specialized presentation of dental evidence in criminal
field of study which in interest of justice, or civil proceedings, all in the interest of
deals with the proper handling and justice. The forensic odontologist also
examination of dental evidence, by assists in the detection, examination,
scientific evaluation and presentation of evaluation and court testimony of bitemarks,
dental findings [12]. Bridging the practice which may occur in various violent crimes.
of dentistry with that of the law, forensic According to American Board of Forensic
odontology most often involves the Odontology (ABFO), bitemark is defined
interpretation of dental evidence from crime as, “the physical alteration in a medium
scenes. Bite marks in themselves provide a caused by the contact of teeth and a
kind of dental identification. Since teeth are representative pattern left in an object or
highly resistant to destruction and tissue by the dental structure of an animal or
decomposition, adverse effects by human” (ABFO) [6]. Bitemark is a very
environmental conditions like air, water and important field of forensic science and is the
extremes of temperature, dental most common form of dental evidence
identification thus can be made even under which is presented in the court of law.3 By
extreme circumstances. Human bitemarks comparing the locations and measurements
are generally associated with violent crimes of teeth marks in a bitemark with those of
like homicide, rape or sexual assault, the suspect(s), forensic odontologist can

1
 Johnson / Indian J. Vet. Res. Vol. 28 No. 2 2018: 1-6

exclude or include persons suspected of MATERIALS AND METHODS

causing the bitemarks [1]. The forensic The study was carried out at Gujarat
dentist, although not involved in the cause Forensic Sciences University (GFSU),
or manner of death, but still provides useful Gandhinagar. The study included a total of
assistance in identifying the deceased by 150 samples comprising of 30 humans (15
evaluating the patterned injuries, and male and 15 female) and 120 domestic
identifying predator. The central dogma of animals (30 dogs, 30 cats, 30 horses and 30
dental identification is that post-mortem cattle). Samples for humans were taken
dental remains can be compared with ante from private dental clinic, Ahmedabad and
mortem dental records, including written GFSU, Gandhinagar. The samples for
notes, study casts, radiographs, etc., to domestic animals were taken from College
confirm identity. The most common of Veterinary Sciences, Anand and Society
methods of dental identification are the for Prevention of Cruelty on Animals
comparative identification and post-mortem (SPCA), Ahmedabad. Consent was taken
profiling [19]. Bitemarks from animals as from the subjects for the bitemark
well as humans are important from both, impression which was solely meant for
practical (health/welfare) and legal point of research purpose. Since the domestic
view. Bitemark wounds caused by animals, animals were sedated by the veterinary
especially mammals, are often a cause of doctors for their scheduled procedures and
injury, infection or death in humans and treatments, hence no ethical permission
other species. The appearance of bitemark is were required for the present study.
dependent upon different variables, such as
number of teeth contacting the substrate,
force, direction and type of biting action, the
biter’s occlusion and oral health, as well as
whether the victim was alive or dead when
bitten [22]. Humans and domestic animals
bite mark examination is by far the most
demanding and complicated part of forensic
dentistry. Scientific detail analysis of the
dental (class and individual) characteristics
of bite mark may help in identifying the
perpetrator [11]. This raises the question as
to what degree of difference in shape will
distinguish one dentition from another as
reflected in a bitemark. Till date there have
been no studies that systematically explore
this question and to avoid cases of
misdiagnosis. The parameters of the study
include investigation on the measurements
of the intercanine distance (ICD), individual
anterior teeth measurements. Literature
review revealed that hardly any work
existed which could assist the forensic
examiners to differentiate human and
Fig. 1. Bite registration of maxilla and mandible
animal bitemarks conclusively. Hence, this
using modeling wax
study is an attempt to differentiate domestic
animals and human bitemarks and to Firstly, the dental modeling wax was
compare and analyze the bite mark placed in the mouth to record the upper and
impression patterns. lower bite marks pattern of humans and

2
Johnson / Indian J. Vet. Res. Vol. 28 No. 2 2018: 1-6

domestic animals to create the exemplars edges of central and lateral incisors are
(Fig. 1.). Secondly, the impression material 5-10 mm and 5-8mm respectively.
was placed in the mouth of the subjects  Intercanine distance (ICD) measured on
(Fig.2.) and upper and lower impressions of dental cast ranged from 22-40 mm with
the teeth were recorded, which was a mean of 33.2 and standard deviation
thoroughly washed, dried and disinfected of 5.0. The maxillary intercanine
using isopropyl alcohol. Master casts was distance was normally larger than the
then prepared and labelled according to mandibular measurement.
manufacturer’s specifications.
Domestic Animals
Dog
 The breeds of dog included in the study
were: German Shepherd (5), Doberman
(5), Pomeranian (5), Rottweiler (5),
Labrador (5), Indian dog (5).
 The arch shape shows circular to oval
shape.
 The dental formula of permanent
dentition of dog is I 3/3, C 1/1, PM 4/4,
M 2/3.
 Incisor morphology of dogs was found
to be round to oval whereas canine
morphology showed round to oval.
 Intercanine distance (ICD) measured on
dental cast ranged from 32-50 mm with
a mean of 34.647 and standard
deviation of 4.11.
 When the different breeds of dogs were
compared the arch shape, incisor and
canine morphology continued to remain
the same. The only difference being in
Fig. 2. Impression of maxilla and mandible the arch size, with Pomeranian showing
using Silicone Impression material (Soft Putty) the smallest and Rottweiler showing the
RESULTS largest.
Humans Cat
 The age range observed was 21-31  The arch shape of cat shows circular
years. pattern.
 The arch shape was predominantly  The dental formula for the permanent
found to be oval, elliptical or circular or dentition of cat is – I 3/3, C 1/1, PM
doughnut shape. 3/2, M 1/1.
 The dental formula of permanent  The incisor morphology was found to
dentition of humans is I 2/2, C 1/1, PM be circular (small size) and canine
2/2, M 3/3. morphology showed circular (large
 The incisor morphology observed in size).
humans showed rectangular shapes  Intercanine distance (ICD) measured on
whereas canine showed triangular or dental cast ranged from 11.80 to 18.24
trapezoidal shape. mm with a mean of 16.05 and standard
 The average dimensions of the incisal deviation of 2.34.

3
 Johnson / Indian J. Vet. Res. Vol. 28 No. 2 2018: 1-6

Horse  The arch shape of cattle shows semi-

 The arch shape of horse shows circular to parabola shaped pattern on
rectangular to semi-circular pattern its anterior portion.
 The dental formula for the permanent  The dental formula of cattle for the
dentition of horse is – I 3/3, C 1/1, PM permanent dentition is I 0/4, C 0/0, P
3-4/3-4, M 3/3. 3/3, M 3/3).
 The incisor morphology are found to be  Incisors morphology are found in the
broad rectangular to oval in shape seen rostral portion of the mouth, but they
on the incisal table of permanent are absent from upper jaw.
incisors.  Due to the absence of canine among
 The typical wear patterns in horses cattle, intercanine distance cannot be
include: measured.
o Pulp mark/ Dental star appearance The bitemark pattern of different
are seen after some wear has species is shown in (Fig. 3). Intercanine
occurred on the tooth that is distance and arch shape are few, simple
smaller than the incisor cusps. reliable parameter to differentiate between
bite marks that are produced by humans and
o The angle of the incisors generally
domestic animals (Table 1).
becomes more acute, slanting
forward.
 Small deciduous canines are always
present in both sexes, but they are
absorbed without eruption, and though
the permanent canines are present and
may be felt under the buccal membrane B
of the mare (female horses) are not A C
often erupted, and less seldom in the
upper than in the lower Jaw. Hence, the
D
criteria of intercanine distance could
not be fulfilled. Fig. 3. Bitemark pattern of different domestic
Cattle animals (A-dog, B-cat, C-horse, D-cattle) v/s
humans.
Table 1. Comparison of humans and domestic animals bitemark pattern
Parameters Human Dog Cat Horse Bitemark Cattle Bitemark
Bitemark Bitemark Bitemark
Tooth Numbering FDI Modified Triadan Numbering System
System
Arch Shape Oval, Circular Small Broad Oval Broad Oval with
Elliptical Circular one side teeth mark
Arch Width 22-40 mm 30-50 mm 8-20 mm - -
Dental I2/2 I 3/3 I 3/3 I 3/3 I 0/4
Formula C1/1 C 1/1 C 1/1 C1/1 (Male) C 0/0
PM 2/2 PM 4/4 PM 3/2 PM 4/3 PM 3/3
M 3/3 M 2/3 M 1/1 M 3/3 M 3/3
Incisor Rectangular Oval Circular Broad rectangular Broad rectangular
Morphology with variation
Canine Triangular Prominent Circular Do not occlude if -
Morphology Oval present
The arch width of dog-human, cat-human, horse-human and cattle-human is statistically significant (p<0.0001). The mesio-
distal and bucco-ligual width of incisor of dog-human, cat-human, horse-human and cattle-human is statistically significant
(p<0.0001). The bucco-lingual width of incisor of dog-human is not statistically significant (p=0.127) whereas cat-human,
horse-human and cattle-human is statistically significant (p<0.0001). The mesio-distal and bucco-lingual width of canine of
dog-human, cat-human, horse-human and cattle-human is statistically significant (p<0.0001).

4
Johnson / Indian J. Vet. Res. Vol. 28 No. 2 2018: 1-6

DISCUSSION shape of skull. The variability of the ICD

The literature showed that the domestic measurements found in both humans and
animal can produce bite wounds and the dogs had similar values, but on average
identification of the aggressor is one of the measurements for dogs are larger than
determining factors in subsequent forensic humans [14,15,18,20]. The arch shape and
investigations [21]. The shape of human bite incisor morphology showed a significant
mark is normally ovoid; elliptical in pattern difference [2]. Variation in tooth
[10]. This normal shape can vary when teeth morphology is of interest to a dental
have abnormal positions, such as anthropologist and a forensic odontologist
displacement, rotations or malalignments. In as they help in classification of population
contrast, bites from animals usually appear groups and identification of the individual
as oblong or V shape marks. Thus, the data forensic examinations respectively [13]. The
obtained during the study on humans incidences of animal and human bite
correlated and matched with the study by injuries or fatalities have increased.
Kashyap et al. [11]. The arch width also is Therefore, it has become imperative that the
an important parameter apart from arch forensic odontologist examines and reports
shape. The arch width, in bitemark analysis, the patterned injuries. Analysis of such
can be defined as the transverse distance patterned injuries should be u-ndertaken if
that is measured, using landmarks between unique or, in certain circumstances where
canines i.e. the intercanine distance. Other class characteristics and individual
measurements of dental arches such as arch characteristics exists. The outcome of the
length or depth are seldom, if ever, used in study is highly helpful to the forensic
evaluation in bitemarks. Differences in arch fraternity of different expertise such as
size between ethnic groups have also been forensic odontologist, forensic pathologists,
reported [9,17] where male tend to possess veterinarians, biologists, crime investigators
dental arches greater in size than females. he and others. The future scope can include
results of the present study were in advance technology like SEM (Scanning
accordance with the results reported by electron microscopy) and 3D scanning
other workers [7,8, 9,16,17]. Arch size may imaging of the bitemark patterns and
have considerable implications in bitemark dentition for comparisons and analysis.
analysis. Arch size and incisor tooth sizes However in future; research could be done
are often used to differentiate marks made by increasing the sample size.
by the upper or lower dentitions [10]. Arch
sizes may assist in relating a bitemark to REFERENCES
animal or human arches. For example, the
1. Al-Amad, S.H. Forensic odontology. Smile
typical average intercanine distance in the
Dental J. 2009, 4: 22-24.
upper jaw of dog is of 50 mm, whereas in
2. Bernitz, H., Bernitz, Z., Steenkamp, G.,
human, the average of intercanine distance Blumenthal, R. and Stols G. The
in the upper jaw is 40 mm [4]. In contrast, indivualization of a dog bite mark: a case
the presence of upper dental arch with an study highlighting the bite mark analysis,
intercanine distance less than 30 mm in with emphasis on differences between dog
human bitemarks is usually indicative of a and human bitemarks. Int. J. Legal Med.
bite made by child [5]. The results obtained 2012, 126: 441-446.
in the present study is in accordance to the 3. Bhargava, K., Bhargava, D., Rastogi, P.,
study by Kashyap et al. [11]. The study Paul, M., Pau,l R., Jagadeesh, H.G. and
samples were also assessed for the arch size, Singla, A. An overview of bite mark
shape, incisor and canine morphology, ICD analysis. J. Indian Acad. Forensic Med.
measurement. The result showed variability 2012, 34:61-66.
among the dogs, cats, horses and cattle 4. Bowers, C.M. Recognition, recovery and
which is due to difference in the size and analysis of bite mark evidence. In: Forensic

5
 Johnson / Indian J. Vet. Res. Vol. 28 No. 2 2018: 1-6

Dental Evidence: An Investigator’s 14. Lyver, P.O. Identifying mammalian

Handbook. [Meppel, Netherland: Elsevier predators from bite marks: A tool for
Academic Press; 67-107]. focusing wildlife protection. Mammalian
5. Clark, D.H. and Kenny, J.P. Child Abuse. Review. Mamm. Soc. 2000, 30: 31-43.
In: Practical Forensic Odontology. 15. Metcalf, R.D. Yet another method for
[Oxford: Wright, 1992: 138-148]. marking incisal edges of teeth for bitemark
6. Dailey, J., Golden, G., Senn, D. and analysis. J. Forensic Sci. 2008, 53: 426-
Wright, F. Bitemarks. Manual of Forensic 429.
Odontology, Fifth Edition, 2013: 257-324. 16. Merz, M.L., Jassacson, R.J., German, N.
7. Dalidjan, M., Sampson, W. and Townsend, and Rubenstein, L.K. Tooth diameters and
G. Prediction of dental arch development: arch perimeters in a black and a white
an assessment of Pont’s index in three population. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac
human populations. Am.J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991,100: 53-58.
Orthop.1995,107: 465-475. 17. Nummikoski, P., Prihoda, T., Langlais,
8. Diwan, R. and Elahi, J.M. A comparative R.P., McDavid, W.D., Welander, U. and
study between three ethnic groups to derive Tronje, G. (1988). Dental and mandibular
some standards for maxillary arch arch widths in three ethnic groups in
dimensions. J. Oral Rehabil. 1990, 17: 43- Texas: A radiographic study. Oral Surg.
48. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 1988, 65: 609-617.
9. Ferrario, V.F., Sforza, C., Colombo, A., 18. Sudarshan, M. Assessing Burden of Rabies
Carvajal, R., Duncan, V. and Palomino, H. in India: WHO Sponsored National Multi-
Dental arch size in healthy human centric Rabies Survey, 2003. Indian J.
permanent dentitions: ethnic differences as Comm. Med. 2005, 30: 100.
assessed by discriminant analysis. Int.J. doi:10.4103/09700218.42864.
Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1999, 19. Sweet, D. and Pretty, I.A. A look at
14: 153-162. forensic dentistry- Part 2: teeth as weapons
10. Goldman, A.D. The scope of forensic of violence-identification of bite mark
dentistry. In: Cottone J.A., Standish S.M., perpetrators. Br. Dent. J. 2001, 190: 415-
editors. Outline of Forensic Dentistry. 418.
[Chicago: Yearbook Medical Publishers; 20. Sweet, D. and Bowers, C.M. Accuracy of
1982. pp. 15-19]. bite mark overlays: A comparison of five
11. Kashyap, B., Anand S, Reddy, S., Sahukar, common methods to produce exemplars
S.B, Supriya, N. and Pasupuleti, S. from a suspect′s dentition. J. Forensic Sci.
Comparison of the bite mark pattern and 1998, 43: 362-367.
intercanine distance between humans and 21. Tedeschi-Oliveira, S.V., Trigueiro, M.,
dogs. J. Forensic Dent. Sci. 2015, 7: 175- Oliveira, R.N. and Melani, R.F. Intercanine
179. distance in the analysis of bite marks: A
12. Keiser-Nielsen S. Person. Identification by comparison of human and domestic dog
Means of the Teeth. Am. J. Forensic Med. dental arches. J. Forensic Odontostomatol.
Path. 198, 2: 189. 2011, 29: 30-36.
13. Krishan, K., Kanchan, T. and Garg, A.K. 22. Vale, G.L. Dentistry, bite marks and the
Dental evidence in forensic identification– investigation of crime. J. Calif. Dent.
An overview, methodology and present Assoc. 1996, 24: 29-34.
status. Open Dent. J. 2015, 31; 9: 350-356.

View publication stats