Forensic Odontology Expert Witness

Overview

About Forensic Odontology Expert Witnesses

A forensic odontologist applies dentistry to legal questions, and the field divides sharply in two. Identifying human remains from dental records is well established. Matching a bite mark on skin to a particular person is not, and the major scientific reviews have said so plainly. Any attorney retaining this expert should know which side of that line the case sits on. This page covers forensic dental work. A dental malpractice claim belongs to a dentist in the same field.

The Accepted Core: Dental Identification

The National Research Council's 2009 report described the field as covering identification of remains, interpretation of oral injury, dental malpractice and bite mark comparison, among other areas ¹. It said the identification of human remains by their dental characteristics is well established in the forensic science disciplines ¹. NIST's later review agrees that this work is a different matter from bitemarks, and states that dental characteristics routinely enable postmortem identification of human remains ².

The work is comparison of records. An odontologist compares antemortem charts and radiographs with postmortem findings, including restorations, anatomy and missing teeth. The work is common after fires, mass casualty events, and long-unidentified remains. The quality of the records drives the opinion, so the expert should report how complete they were, and how the comparison was documented.

Bite Marks: The Scientific Record

This is where the fights are, and the record is one-sided. Three national reviews reached similar conclusions over 14 years:

• National Research Council, 2009. The report said there is continuing dispute over the value and scientific validity of comparing and identifying bite marks ¹.
• PCAST, 2016. The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology found that bitemark analysis does not meet the scientific standards for foundational validity, and is far from meeting them ³. It said available evidence strongly suggests that examiners cannot consistently agree on whether an injury is a human bitemark and cannot identify the source with reasonable accuracy ³. It rated the prospects of developing the method as low ³.
• NIST, 2023. NIST concluded that forensic bitemark analysis lacks a sufficient scientific foundation because the three key premises of the field are not supported by the data ². Those premises are that dental patterns are unique at the individual level, that the patterns are accurately transferred to human skin, and that defining characteristics can be accurately analyzed ². NIST also noted a lack of consensus among practitioners, and that a bitemark typically shows only the anterior teeth, which limits the information available ².

NIST's supporting paper adds a useful detail about standards. It says that the process used to create the American Board of Forensic Odontology guidelines is unknown and that the procedures were not publicly available ⁴.

Using This in Litigation

A defense attorney facing bite mark testimony now has a strong base for a challenge. Rule 702, as amended, puts on the proponent the burden to show it is more likely than not that the testimony meets the rule, and the committee note says each expert opinion must stay within the bounds of what can be concluded from a reliable application of the method ⁵. A retained odontologist can then explain the limits of the comparison, and what skin distortion and photography do to a mark.

These reviews also bear on past cases. Attorneys working on post-conviction claims may use them to argue new evidence, although whether the scientific shift opens a procedural path depends on the jurisdiction. Courts did not always test this evidence in the past. The 2009 report noted decisions that admitted bite mark testimony, including one saying that the science might have been in its infancy at the time of trial ¹.

A prosecutor or civil plaintiff has narrower uses. An odontologist may address whether an injury looks like a bite at all, and a DNA swab of a suspected bite may answer the question better. Even that first step drew concern from PCAST, so counsel should think hard before offering it.

Who Is Qualified

Look for a licensed dentist with specific forensic training and direct casework. Board certification exists, but with bite marks it is not a substitute for scientific support, so ask what the expert relies on. For identification, ask about medical examiner or disaster team work. For a bite mark challenge, an academic with statistics or research experience can be stronger than a practitioner. A forensic pathologist addresses the wound and cause of death, a DNA analyst addresses biological traces, and a dentist in practice addresses malpractice.

Qualifications

Qualifications to Look For

• ✓Licensed dentist with specific forensic training
• ✓Direct casework with a medical examiner or disaster team, for identification
• ✓Working knowledge of the NAS, PCAST, and NIST reviews
• ✓Skill with dental radiographs and antemortem record comparison
• ✓For challenges, research or statistical understanding of error and validity
• ✓Candor about what the discipline cannot show
• ✓Prior deposition and trial testimony, including at admissibility hearings

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions